-
Lancet (London, England) Jul 2022Behavioural, cognitive, and pharmacological interventions can all be effective for insomnia. However, because of inadequate resources, medications are more frequently... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Behavioural, cognitive, and pharmacological interventions can all be effective for insomnia. However, because of inadequate resources, medications are more frequently used worldwide. We aimed to estimate the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for the acute and long-term treatment of adults with insomnia disorder.
METHODS
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and websites of regulatory agencies from database inception to Nov 25, 2021, to identify published and unpublished randomised controlled trials. We included studies comparing pharmacological treatments or placebo as monotherapy for the treatment of adults (≥18 year) with insomnia disorder. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) framework. Primary outcomes were efficacy (ie, quality of sleep measured by any self-rated scale), treatment discontinuation for any reason and due to side-effects specifically, and safety (ie, number of patients with at least one adverse event) both for acute and long-term treatment. We estimated summary standardised mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios (ORs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. This study is registered with Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PU4QJ.
FINDINGS
We included 170 trials (36 interventions and 47 950 participants) in the systematic review and 154 double-blind, randomised controlled trials (30 interventions and 44 089 participants) were eligible for the network meta-analysis. In terms of acute treatment, benzodiazepines, doxylamine, eszopiclone, lemborexant, seltorexant, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more efficacious than placebo (SMD range: 0·36-0·83 [CINeMA estimates of certainty: high to moderate]). Benzodiazepines, eszopiclone, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more efficacious than melatonin, ramelteon, and zaleplon (SMD 0·27-0·71 [moderate to very low]). Intermediate-acting benzodiazepines, long-acting benzodiazepines, and eszopiclone had fewer discontinuations due to any cause than ramelteon (OR 0·72 [95% CI 0·52-0·99; moderate], 0·70 [0·51-0·95; moderate] and 0·71 [0·52-0·98; moderate], respectively). Zopiclone and zolpidem caused more dropouts due to adverse events than did placebo (zopiclone: OR 2·00 [95% CI 1·28-3·13; very low]; zolpidem: 1·79 [1·25-2·50; moderate]); and zopiclone caused more dropouts than did eszopiclone (OR 1·82 [95% CI 1·01-3·33; low]), daridorexant (3·45 [1·41-8·33; low), and suvorexant (3·13 [1·47-6·67; low]). For the number of individuals with side-effects at study endpoint, benzodiazepines, eszopiclone, zolpidem, and zopiclone were worse than placebo, doxepin, seltorexant, and zaleplon (OR range 1·27-2·78 [high to very low]). For long-term treatment, eszopiclone and lemborexant were more effective than placebo (eszopiclone: SMD 0·63 [95% CI 0·36-0·90; very low]; lemborexant: 0·41 [0·04-0·78; very low]) and eszopiclone was more effective than ramelteon (0.63 [0·16-1·10; very low]) and zolpidem (0·60 [0·00-1·20; very low]). Compared with ramelteon, eszopiclone and zolpidem had a lower rate of all-cause discontinuations (eszopiclone: OR 0·43 [95% CI 0·20-0·93; very low]; zolpidem: 0·43 [0·19-0·95; very low]); however, zolpidem was associated with a higher number of dropouts due to side-effects than placebo (OR 2·00 [95% CI 1·11-3·70; very low]).
INTERPRETATION
Overall, eszopiclone and lemborexant had a favorable profile, but eszopiclone might cause substantial adverse events and safety data on lemborexant were inconclusive. Doxepin, seltorexant, and zaleplon were well tolerated, but data on efficacy and other important outcomes were scarce and do not allow firm conclusions. Many licensed drugs (including benzodiazepines, daridorexant, suvorexant, and trazodone) can be effective in the acute treatment of insomnia but are associated with poor tolerability, or information about long-term effects is not available. Melatonin, ramelteon, and non-licensed drugs did not show overall material benefits. These results should serve evidence-based clinical practice.
FUNDING
UK National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.
Topics: Adult; Benzodiazepines; Doxepin; Eszopiclone; Humans; Melatonin; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Zolpidem
PubMed: 35843245
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00878-9 -
Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome Jun 2022To assess the safety and efficacy of semaglutide compared with placebo and other anti-hyperglycaemic agents in type 2 diabetes (T2DM). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
To assess the safety and efficacy of semaglutide compared with placebo and other anti-hyperglycaemic agents in type 2 diabetes (T2DM).
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane library for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A network meta-analysis was conducted to compare different doses, durations, and interventions in T2DM. We presented results as mean difference (MD) or relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
Twenty-six included RCTs studied different doses of subcutaneous (SC) and oral semaglutide, tirzepatide, liraglutide, sitagliptin, canagliflozin, and empagliflozin compared with placebo. Tirzepatide showed the highest efficacy, however, it was comparable to semaglutide. SC semaglutide 1 mg once-weekly showed higher reduction in HbA (MD = -1.72, 95% CI [-2.32; -1.12]), and fasting blood glucose (MD = -1.93, 95% CI [-2.81; -1.04]) versus placebo at 30 weeks and other timepoints. Adverse events (ADs) were comparable to placebo with oral and SC semaglutide, oral sitagliptin, SC liraglutide, and oral empagliflozin at most timepoints. However, SC semaglutide 0.8 mg and tirzepatide 10 mg groups had the highest gastrointestinal adverse events.
CONCLUSION
Tirzepatide, oral and SC semaglutide has a favourable efficacy in treating T2DM. The adverse events were comparable to placebo; however, gastrointestinal adverse events were highly recorded in tirzepatide, oral and SC semaglutide groups.
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Glucagon-Like Peptides; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Liraglutide; Network Meta-Analysis; Sitagliptin Phosphate
PubMed: 35623229
DOI: 10.1016/j.dsx.2022.102511 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Jan 2022Outcomes of treatment of tuberculosis patients with regimens including pretomanid have not yet been systematically reviewed. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Outcomes of treatment of tuberculosis patients with regimens including pretomanid have not yet been systematically reviewed.
OBJECTIVES
To appraise existing evidence on efficacy and safety of pretomanid in tuberculosis.
DATA SOURCES
Pubmed, clinicaltrials.gov. and Cochrane library.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Quantitative studies presenting original data on clinical efficacy or safety of pretomanid.
PARTICIPANTS
Patients with tuberculosis.
INTERVENTIONS
Treatment with pretomanid or pretomanid-containing regimens in minimum one study group.
METHODS
Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data on efficacy (early bactericidal activity, bactericidal activity, end-of-treatment outcomes and acquired resistance) and safety were summarized in tables. Mean differences in efficacy outcomes between regimens across studies were calculated.
RESULTS
Eight studies were included; four randomized controlled trials on 2-week early bactericidal activity in rifampicin-susceptible tuberculosis, three trials with randomized rifampicin-susceptible tuberculosis arms and a single rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis arm (two on 8-week bactericidal activity, one on end-of-treatment outcomes), one single-arm trial with end-of-treatment outcomes in highly resistant tuberculosis. Activity of pretomanid-moxifloxacin-pyrazinamide was superior to standard treatment on daily change in colony-forming units at days 0-2, 0-56 and 7-56 and time to culture conversion in rifampicin-susceptible tuberculosis (hazard ratio: 1.7; 95% CI 1.1-2.7), but not at end of treatment in one study. This study was stopped due to serious hepatotoxic adverse events, including three deaths, in 4% (95% CI 2-8) patients on pretomanid-moxifloxacin-pyrazinamide and none in controls. In patients with uncomplicated rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis on pretomanid-moxifloxacin-pyrazinamide treatment, 91% (95% CI 59-100) had favourable end-of-treatment outcomes. In patients with highly resistant tuberculosis, 90% (95% CI 83-95) on pretomanid-bedaquiline-linezolid had favourable outcomes six months after treatment, but linezolid-related toxicity was frequent. No acquired resistance to pretomanid was reported.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence suggests an important role for pretomanid in rifampicin-resistant and highly resistant tuberculosis. Trials comparing pretomanid to existing core and companion drugs are needed to further define that role.
Topics: Antitubercular Agents; Humans; Linezolid; Moxifloxacin; Nitroimidazoles; Pyrazinamide; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rifampin; Tuberculosis; Tuberculosis, Multidrug-Resistant
PubMed: 34400340
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2021.08.007 -
Paediatric Drugs Jun 2017A large proportion of paediatric patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have associated sleep problems which not only affect the child's wellbeing... (Review)
Review
Safety, Tolerability and Efficacy of Drugs for Treating Behavioural Insomnia in Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Systematic Review with Methodological Quality Assessment.
OBJECTIVE
A large proportion of paediatric patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have associated sleep problems which not only affect the child's wellbeing but also impact family functioning. Management of sleep problems is consequently an important aspect of overall ADHD management in paediatric patients. Although some drugs are being used off-label for the management of paediatric insomnia, there is scant clinical evidence supporting their use. Our aim was to identify and assess the quality of published studies reporting the safety, tolerability and efficacy of drugs used for treating behavioural insomnia in children with ADHD.
METHODS
After an initial screen to determine which drugs were most commonly used, we conducted a systematic review of English-language publications from searches of PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and two trial register databases to February 2017, using keywords 'clonidine', 'melatonin', 'zolpidem', 'eszopiclone', 'L-theanine', 'guanfacine', 'ADHD', 'sleep disorder' and 'children'. For quality assessment of included studies, we used the CONSORT checklist for randomised control trials (RCTs) and the Downs and Black checklist for non-RCTs.
RESULTS
Twelve studies were included. Two case series for clonidine, two RCTs and four observational studies for melatonin and one RCT each for zolpidem, eszopiclone, L-theanine and guanfacine. Of the 12 included studies, only one on eszopiclone scored excellent for quality. The quality of the rest of the studies varied from moderate to low. For clonidine, melatonin and L-theanine, improvements in sleep-onset latency and total sleep duration were reported; however, zolpidem, eszopiclone and guanfacine failed to show any improvement when compared with placebo. Clonidine, melatonin, L-theanine, eszopiclone and guanfacine were well tolerated with mild to moderate adverse events; zolpidem was associated with neuropsychiatric adverse effects.
CONCLUSION
There is generally poor evidence for prescribing drugs for behavioural insomnia in children with ADHD. Further controlled studies are warranted.
Topics: Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Child; Clonidine; Eszopiclone; Glutamates; Guanfacine; Humans; Melatonin; Observational Studies as Topic; Pyridines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Zolpidem
PubMed: 28391425
DOI: 10.1007/s40272-017-0224-6 -
Advances in Therapy May 2022Many treatment regimens have been evaluated in transplant-ineligible (TIE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). The objective of this study was to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Many treatment regimens have been evaluated in transplant-ineligible (TIE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of relevant therapies for the treatment of TIE patients with NDMM.
METHODS
Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating different treatment options for TIE patients with NDMM were compared in a network meta-analysis (NMA). The NMA includes recent primary and long-term OS readouts from SWOG S0777, ENDURANCE, MAIA, and ALCYONE. Relevant trials were identified through a systematic literature review. Relative efficacy measures (i.e., hazard ratios [HRs] for PFS and OS) were extracted and synthesised in random-effects NMAs.
RESULTS
A total of 122 publications describing 45 unique RCTs was identified. Continuous lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd) was selected as the referent comparator. Daratumumab-containing treatments (daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone [D-Rd], daratumumab/bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone [D-VMP]) and bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (VRd) had the highest probabilities of being more effective than Rd continuous for PFS (HR: D-Rd, 0.53; D-VMP, 0.57, VRd, 0.77) and OS (HR: D-Rd, 0.68; VRd, 0.77, D-VMP, 0.78). D-Rd had the highest chance of being ranked as the most effective treatment with respect to PFS and OS. Results using a smaller network focusing on only those regimens that are relevant in Europe were consistent with the primary analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
These comparative effectiveness data may help inform treatment selection in TIE patients with NDMM.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bortezomib; Dexamethasone; Humans; Lenalidomide; Multiple Myeloma; Network Meta-Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35246820
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-022-02083-8 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016Multiple myeloma is a malignancy of plasma cells accounting for approximately 1% of cancers and 12% of haematological malignancies. The first-in-class proteasome... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Multiple myeloma is a malignancy of plasma cells accounting for approximately 1% of cancers and 12% of haematological malignancies. The first-in-class proteasome inhibitor, bortezomib, is commonly used to treat newly diagnosed as well as relapsed/refractory myeloma, either as single agent or combined with other therapies.
OBJECTIVES
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of bortezomib on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), adverse events (AEs) and treatment-related death (TRD).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and EMBASE (till 27 January 2016) as well as conference proceedings and clinical trial registries for randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared i) bortezomib versus no bortezomib with the same background therapy in each arm; ii) bortezomib versus no bortezomib with different background therapy in each arm or compared to other agent(s) and iii) bortezomib dose comparisons and comparisons of different treatment administrations and schedules.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted outcomes data and assessed risk of bias. We extracted hazard ratios (HR) and their confidence intervals for OS and PFS and odds ratios (OR) for response rates, AEs and TRD. We contacted trial authors to provide summary statistics if missing. We estimated Logrank statistics which were not available. We extracted HRQoL data, where available.
MAIN RESULTS
We screened a total of 3667 records, identifying 16 relevant RCTs involving 5626 patients and included 12 trials in the meta-analyses. All trials were randomised and open-label studies. Two trials were published in abstract form and therefore we were unable to assess potential risk of bias in full.There is moderate-quality evidence that bortezomib prolongs OS (four studies, 1586 patients; Peto OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.92) and PFS (five studies, 1855 patients; Peto OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.74) from analysing trials of bortezomib versus no bortezomib with the same background therapy in each arm.There is high-quality evidence that bortezomib prolongs OS (five studies, 2532 patients; Peto OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.88) but low-quality evidence for PFS (four studies, 2489 patients; Peto OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.75) from analysing trials of bortezomib versus no bortezomib with different background therapy in each arm or compared to other agent(s).Four trials (N = 716) examined different doses, methods of administrations and treatment schedules and were reviewed qualitatively only.We identified four trials in the meta-analysis that measured time to progression (TTP) and were able to extract and analyse PFS data for three of the studies, while in the case of one study, we included TTP data as PFS data were not available. We therefore did not analyse TTP separately in this review.Patients treated with bortezomib have increased risk of thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, gastro-intestinal toxicities, peripheral neuropathy, infection and fatigue with the quality of evidence highly variable. There is high-quality evidence for increased risk of cardiac disorders from analysing trials of bortezomib versus no bortezomib with different background therapy in each arm or versus other agents. The risk of TRD in either comparison group analysed is uncertain due to the low quality of the evidence.Only four trials analysed HRQoL and the data could not be meta-analysed.Subgroup analyses by disease setting revealed improvements in all outcomes, whereas for therapy setting, an improved benefit for bortezomib was observed in all outcomes and subgroups except for OS following consolidation therapy.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis found that myeloma patients receiving bortezomib benefited in terms of OS, PFS and response rate compared to those who did not receive bortezomib. This benefit was observed in trials of bortezomib versus no bortezomib with the same background therapy and in trials of bortezomib versus no bortezomib with different background therapy in each arm or compared to other agent(s). Further evaluation of newer proteasome inhibitors is required to ascertain whether these agents offer an improved risk-benefit profile, while more studies of HRQoL are also required.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Bortezomib; Humans; Multiple Myeloma; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27096326
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010816.pub2 -
International Journal of Dermatology Oct 2020Scleromyxedema is a chronic disease with high morbidity and mortality and no definitive therapeutic guidelines. (Review)
Review
IMPORTANCE
Scleromyxedema is a chronic disease with high morbidity and mortality and no definitive therapeutic guidelines.
OBJECTIVE
To review all available data on the efficacy and the safety of the available treatments of scleromyxedema and suggest a possible therapeutic approach.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
We performed a systematic literature review in Pubmed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane collaboration databases, searching for all articles since 1990 on the treatments of scleromyxedema, with no limits on participant age, gender, or nationality.
FINDINGS
Ninety-seven studies were included in this systematic review, of which one prospective, two retrospective, 70 case reports/case series, and 24 letters/correspondence/clinical image. Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) was the most used first-line therapy based on its efficacy and its generally well-tolerated nature; most patients require continued treatment to remain in remission. Thalidomide and systemic glucocorticoids were mostly considered as second-line therapies and were given alone or in association with IVIG. Patients with severe or refractory disease were treated with autologous bone marrow transplantation, melphalan, or bortezomib with dexamethasone.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Consideration of patient comorbidities, disease distribution, clinician experience, and treatment accessibility is mandatory in every therapeutic approach of scleromyxedema.
Topics: Bortezomib; Humans; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Scleromyxedema; Thalidomide
PubMed: 32358980
DOI: 10.1111/ijd.14888 -
Blood Cancer Journal Sep 2023Rituximab-based chemo-immunotherapy is currently the standard first-line treatment for Waldenstrom macroglobulinaemia (WM), while ibrutinib has emerged as an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Rituximab-based chemo-immunotherapy is currently the standard first-line treatment for Waldenstrom macroglobulinaemia (WM), while ibrutinib has emerged as an alternative. In the absence of randomised trials (RCTs) comparing these regimens, the optimal first-line treatment for WM remains uncertain. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we sought to assess the efficacy and safety of first-line treatment regimens for WM. We searched key databases from January 2007 to March 2023, including phase II and III trials, including treatment-naïve WM patients treated with rituximab-based regimens or ibrutinib. Response rates, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicities were evaluated. Four phase III and seven phase II trials were included among 736 unique records. Pooled response rates from all comparative and non-comparative trials were 46%, 33% and 26% for bendamustine rituximab (BR), bortezomib-dexamethasone, cyclophosphamide, rituximab (BDRC) and ibrutinib rituximab (IR), respectively. Two-year pooled PFS was 89%, 81% and 82% with BR, BDRC and IR, respectively. Neuropathy was more frequent with bortezomib, while haematologic and cardiac toxicities were more common with chemo-immunotherapy and ibrutinib-based regimens respectively. Our findings suggest that BR yields higher response rates than bortezomib or ibrutinib-based combinations. RCTs comparing BR against emerging therapies, including novel Bruton Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors, are warranted.
Topics: Humans; Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia; Rituximab; Bortezomib; Clinical Protocols; Cyclophosphamide
PubMed: 37679351
DOI: 10.1038/s41408-023-00916-5 -
Annals of Medicine 2023The emergence of genetically-modified human proteins and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have presented a promising strategy for effectively managing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative efficacy and safety profile of once-weekly Semaglutide versus once-daily Sitagliptin as an add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The emergence of genetically-modified human proteins and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have presented a promising strategy for effectively managing diabetes. Due to the scarcity of clinical trials focusing on the safety and efficacy of semaglutide as an adjunctive treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes who had inadequate glycemic control with metformin, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. This was necessary to fill the gap and provide a comprehensive assessment of semaglutide compared to sitagliptin, a commonly prescribed DPP-4 inhibitor, in this patient population.
METHODS
A comprehensive and systematic search was carried out on reputable databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Elsevier's ScienceDirect to identify relevant studies that compared the efficacy of once-weekly Semaglutide with once-daily Sitagliptin in individuals diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The analysis of the gathered data was performed utilizing the random-effects model, which considers both within-study and between-study variations.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis incorporated three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), encompassing 2401 participants, with a balanced distribution across the treatment groups. The primary focus of the study revolved around evaluating changes in HbA1C, blood pressure, pulse rate, body weight, waist circumference, and BMI. The findings revealed that once-weekly Semaglutide showed substantially improved HbA1C (WMD: -0.98; 95% CI: -1.28, -0.69, p-value: < 0.0001; I2: 100%), systolic (WMD: -3.73; 95% CI: -5.42, -2.04, p-value: <0.0001; I2: 100%) and diastolic blood pressures (WMD: -0.66; 95% CI: -1.02, -0.29, p-value: 0.0005; I2: 100%), and body weight (WMD: -3.17; 95% CI: -3.84, -2.49, p-value: <0.00001; I2: 100%) compared to once-daily Sitagliptin. However, there was an observed increase in pulse rate (WMD: 3.33; 95% CI: 1.61, 5.06, p-value: <0.00001; I2: 100%) associated with Semaglutide treatment. Regarding secondary outcomes, there was an elevated risk of total adverse events and premature treatment discontinuation with Semaglutide. The risk of serious, severe, moderate, and mild adverse events did not significantly differ between the two treatments.
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, the administration of once-weekly Semaglutide exhibited a substantial reduction in HbA1c, average systolic blood pressure (SBP), mean diastolic blood pressure (DBP), body weight, waist circumference, body mass index (BMI), and a rise in pulse rate, as opposed to the once-daily administration of Sitagliptin.
Topics: Humans; Metformin; Sitagliptin Phosphate; Glycated Hemoglobin; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Hypoglycemic Agents; Body Weight
PubMed: 37498865
DOI: 10.1080/07853890.2023.2239830 -
Psychiatry Research Oct 2017No systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the use of Z-drug for schizophrenia are available. Randomized, placebo-controlled, or non-pharmacological... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
No systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the use of Z-drug for schizophrenia are available. Randomized, placebo-controlled, or non-pharmacological intervention-controlled trials published before 03/20/2017 were retrieved from major healthcare databases and clinical trial registries. A meta-analysis including only randomized, placebo-controlled trials was performed. Efficacy outcomes were measured as improvement in overall schizophrenia symptoms, total sleep time, and wake after sleep onset. Safety/acceptability outcomes were discontinuation rate and individual adverse events. Four trials [1 alpidem placebo-controlled study (n=66), 2 eszopiclone placebo-controlled studies (n=60), and 1 eszopiclone, shallow needling-controlled study (n=96)] were identified. The meta-analysis showed no significant differences in any outcome between pooled Z-drug and placebo treatment groups. For individual studies, alpidem was superior to placebo in improving the overall schizophrenia symptoms. One of the eszopiclone studies showed that eszopiclone was superior to placebo in improving the Insomnia Severity Index scores. Another eszopiclone study showed that eszopiclone did not differ from shallow needling therapy in improving both schizophrenia- and insomnia-related symptoms. Although this study failed to show significant benefits for the use of Z-drug in the treatment of schizophrenia, it showed that short-term use of eszopiclone is an acceptable method for treating persistent insomnia among these patients.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Clinical Trials as Topic; Eszopiclone; Female; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Imidazoles; Male; Middle Aged; Pyridines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia; Sleep; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 28686934
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2017.06.063