-
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and websites of regulatory agencies from database inception to Nov 25, 2021, to identify published and unpublished randomised controlled trials.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 -
The Medical Journal of Australia Apr 2023To review and synthesise the global evidence regarding the health effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes, vapes). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To review and synthesise the global evidence regarding the health effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes, vapes).
STUDY DESIGN
Umbrella review (based on major independent reviews, including the 2018 United States National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM] report) and top-up systematic review of published, peer-reviewed studies in humans examining the relationship of e-cigarette use to health outcomes published since the NASEM report.
DATA SOURCES
Umbrella review: eight major independent reviews published 2017-2021. Systematic review: PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO (articles published July 2017 - July 2020 and not included in NASEM review).
DATA SYNTHESIS
Four hundred eligible publications were included in our synthesis: 112 from the NASEM review, 189 from our top-up review search, and 99 further publications cited by other reviews. There is conclusive evidence linking e-cigarette use with poisoning, immediate inhalation toxicity (including seizures), and e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury (EVALI; largely but not exclusively for e-liquids containing tetrahydrocannabinol and vitamin E acetate), as well as for malfunctioning devices causing injuries and burns. Environmental effects include waste, fires, and generation of indoor airborne particulate matter (substantial to conclusive evidence). There is substantial evidence that nicotine e-cigarettes can cause dependence or addiction in non-smokers, and strong evidence that young non-smokers who use e-cigarettes are more likely than non-users to initiate smoking and to become regular smokers. There is limited evidence that freebase nicotine e-cigarettes used with clinical support are efficacious aids for smoking cessation. Evidence regarding effects on other clinical outcomes, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, development, and mental and reproductive health, is insufficient or unavailable.
CONCLUSION
E-cigarettes can be harmful to health, particularly for non-smokers and children, adolescents, and young adults. Their effects on many important health outcomes are uncertain. E-cigarettes may be beneficial for smokers who use them to completely and promptly quit smoking, but they are not currently approved smoking cessation aids. Better quality evidence is needed regarding the health impact of e-cigarette use, their safety and efficacy for smoking cessation, and effective regulation.
REGISTRATION
Systematic review: PROSPERO, CRD42020200673 (prospective).
Topics: Young Adult; Adolescent; Child; Humans; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Nicotine; Prospective Studies; Smoking; Smoking Cessation
PubMed: 36939271
DOI: 10.5694/mja2.51890 -
PloS One 2015Anticoagulation with low molecular weight heparin and vitamin K antagonists is the current standard of care (SOC) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatment and... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Comparison of the Novel Oral Anticoagulants Apixaban, Dabigatran, Edoxaban, and Rivaroxaban in the Initial and Long-Term Treatment and Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
BACKGROUND
Anticoagulation with low molecular weight heparin and vitamin K antagonists is the current standard of care (SOC) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatment and prevention. Although novel oral anti-coagulants (NOACs) have been compared with SOC in this indication, no head-to-head randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared NOACs. A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of NOACs for the initial and long-term treatment of VTE.
METHODS
Electronic databases (accessed July 2014) were systematically searched to identify RCTs evaluating apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban versus SOC. Eligible patients included adults with an objectively confirmed deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE) or both. A fixed-effect Bayesian NMA was conducted for outcomes of interest, and results were presented as relative risks (RR) and 95% credible intervals (Crl).
RESULTS
Six Phase III RCTs met criteria for inclusion: apixaban (one RCT; n = 5,395); rivaroxaban (two RCTs; n = 3,423/4,832); dabigatran (two RCTs; n = 2,539/2,568); edoxaban (one RCT; n = 8,240). There were no statistically significant differences between the NOACs with regard to the risk of 'VTE and VTE-related death. Apixaban treatment was associated with the most favourable safety profile of the NOACs, showing a statistically significantly reduced risk of 'major or clinically relevant non-major (CRNM) bleed' compared with rivaroxaban (0.47 [0.36, 0.61]), dabigatran (0.69 [0.51, 0.94]), and edoxaban (0.54 [0.41, 0.69]). Dabigatran was also associated with a significantly lower risk of 'major or CRNM bleed' compared with rivaroxaban (0.68 [0.53, 0.87]) and edoxaban (0.77 [0.60, 0.99]).
CONCLUSIONS
Indirect comparisons showed statistically similar reductions in the risk of 'VTE or VTE-related death for all NOACs. In contrast, reductions in 'major or CRNM bleed' for initial/long-term treatment were significantly better with apixaban compared with all other NOACs, and with dabigatran compared with rivaroxaban and edoxaban. Results from the current analysis indicate that the NOACs offer clinical benefit over conventional therapy while highlighting relative differences in their bleeding profile.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anticoagulants; Dabigatran; Humans; Pyrazoles; Pyridines; Pyridones; Rivaroxaban; Thiazoles; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 26716830
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0144856 -
International Journal of Environmental... Jun 2021Heated tobacco products (HTP) are a form of nicotine delivery intended to be an alternative to traditional cigarettes. HTP tobacco products are sold to consumers as a... (Review)
Review
Heated tobacco products (HTP) are a form of nicotine delivery intended to be an alternative to traditional cigarettes. HTP tobacco products are sold to consumers as a less harmful alternative to traditional cigarettes, both for users and bystanders. The actual impact of HTP on the health of users and its overall impact on public health is still not fully known. A systematic search of the literature was carried out to identify relevant studies published in English from 2015 to February 2021. The following databases were used: PubMed, Scopus, Elsevier and ClinicalKey. 25 studies (independent and sponsored by the tobacco industry) were considered. The analysis of exposure biomarkers and cardiovascular and respiratory biomarkers showed differences between smokers and people using heated tobacco products. Improvements in clinically relevant risk markers, especially cholesterol, sICAM-1, 8-epi-PGF2α, 11-DTX-B2, HDL and FEV1, were observed compared to persistent cigarette smokers. On the other hand, exposure to IQOS has been reported to alter mitochondrial function, which may further exaggerate airway inflammation, airway remodeling and lung cancer. These products have the potential to increase oxidative stress and increase respiratory tract infections by increasing microbial adherence to the respiratory tract. Our review suggests that HTP products may be products with a reduced risk of chronic diseases, including respiratory and cardiovascular diseases and cancer compared to traditional smoking, although in the case of non-smokers so far, they may pose a risk of their occurrence. Research seems to be necessary to assess the frequency of HTP use and its potential negative health effects.
Topics: Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Humans; Nicotine; Smokers; Nicotiana; Tobacco Products; Tobacco Smoking
PubMed: 34205612
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18126651 -
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Dec 2022There is a lack of sufficient evidence regarding efficacy and safety of amlodipine on treating hypertension during pregnancy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
There is a lack of sufficient evidence regarding efficacy and safety of amlodipine on treating hypertension during pregnancy.
OBJECTIVE
To compare antihypertensive efficacy, pregnancy outcome and safety of amlodipine with nifedipine on hypertension during pregnancy.
METHODS
A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, clinicaltrials.gov, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database and China Biology Medicine disc of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to April l5, 2021 was conducted on RCTs comparing amlodipine to nifedipine for the treatment of hypertension during pregnancy. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were done by two independent reviewers. To estimate relative effects from all available evidence, a meta-analysis was conducted.
RESULTS
Seventeen RCTs were included. Amlodipine was found the efficacy is slightly superior to nifedipine on treating hypertension during pregnancy (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.10) with a decreased risk for maternal side effects (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.61). Subgroup analysis found amlodipine can get a better control on SBP (RR - 11.68, 95% CI - 17.98 to - 5.37) and DBP (RR - 7.44, 95% CI - 13.81 to - 1.06) compared with intermediate-/long-acting nifedipine. In addition, there was no difference between amlodipine and nifedipine on pregnancy outcomes including caesarean section, premature labour, placental abruption, FGR, fetal distress, neonatal asphyxia.
CONCLUSIONS
Given the results of this systematic review and meta-analysis, amlodipine can be effectively and safely used for hypertension during pregnancy.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Nifedipine; Amlodipine; Hypertension; Pregnancy Outcome; Obstetric Labor, Premature
PubMed: 35305140
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-022-06504-5 -
International Journal of Clinical... Oct 2015This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of esomeprazole and omeprazole in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Electronic... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of esomeprazole and omeprazole in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Electronic searches on PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were carried out for reports up to February 28, 2015. Ten eligible studies from 8 articles were found that enrolled a total of 10,286 patients for meta-analysis. These results revealed a significant difference between esomeprazole vs. omeprazole (RR=1.06, 95% CI [1.01, 1.10], I2=72%, p=0.01) by subgroup according to dosage by random effects model, and a significant difference between esomeprazole 40 mg vs. omeprazole 20 mg (RR=1.07, 95% CI [1.004, 1.14], I2=78%, p=0.04) based on healing rate as determined by endoscopy, using a random effects model. A significant difference between esomeprazole 20 mg and omeprazole 40 mg (RR=0.68, 95% CI [0.47, 0.97], I2=not applicable, p=0.03) was also found in comparing relief of symptoms by random effects model. There were no significant differences in outcomes between other subgroups, including tolerability. Based on these results, a high dose of esomeprazole is recommended for GERD treatment and control in adults.
Topics: Esomeprazole; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Humans; Omeprazole; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Publication Bias
PubMed: 26329348
DOI: 10.5414/CP202396 -
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Oct 2023Nausea and vomiting during pregnancy (NVP) are common symptoms in pregnancy. Although no definitive treatment option for NVP, pyridoxine (Vitamin B6) supplementation has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Nausea and vomiting during pregnancy (NVP) are common symptoms in pregnancy. Although no definitive treatment option for NVP, pyridoxine (Vitamin B6) supplementation has been used widely. The present study aims to systematically evaluate the current evidence regarding pyridoxine for the treatment of NVP.
METHODS
Data were obtained using a stepwise search process using keywords in the following online medical databases; PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus for studies published before 1st May 2021. Studies reporting intervention with pyridoxine supplementation alone and/or with other active substances were included. A meta-analysis was performed on the PUQE score and Rhode's score for nausea and vomiting.
FINDINGS
Initial database searching indicated 548 potentially eligible articles, of which 18 studies satisfying the inclusion criteria were selected. Eight studies showed beneficial effects with pyridoxine alone as the supplementation, while six others found that the supplementation of pyridoxine in combination with another active substance had favourable effects. Supplementation of pyridoxine alone as well as combined treatment of pyridoxine with an active ingredient as the intervention significantly improved the symptoms of nausea according to Rhode's score [0.78 [95% CI: 0.26, 1.31; p = 0.003; I2 = 57%, p = 0.10)] and PUQE score [0.75 (95% CI: 0.28, 1.22; p = 0.002; I2 = 0%, p = 0.51)], respectively.
CONCLUSION
Supplementation of pyridoxine alone as well as with an active ingredient demonstrated beneficial effects for women suffering from NVP.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Pyridoxine; Vitamin B 6; Vomiting; Nausea; Pregnancy Complications; Dietary Supplements; Antiemetics
PubMed: 36719452
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-023-06925-w -
Journal of Psychiatric Research Sep 2020We conducted a random-effects model network meta-analysis to examine differences between lemborexant and suvorexant in efficacy and safety outcomes for treating patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
We conducted a random-effects model network meta-analysis to examine differences between lemborexant and suvorexant in efficacy and safety outcomes for treating patients with insomnia. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL from their inception until April/28/2020. Primary outcomes were subjective time to sleep onset (sTSO), subjective total sleep time (sTST), and subjective wake-after-sleep onset (sWASO) at week 1. Four double-blind, randomized controlled trials were identified (n = 3237; 72.4% female; mean age 58.0 years). The treatment arm consisted of lemborexant 10 mg/d (LEM10, n = 592), lemborexant 5 mg/d (LEM5, n = 589), suvorexant 20/15 mg/d (SUV20/15, n = 493), zolpidem tartrate extended release 6.25 mg/d (ZOL6.25, n = 263), and placebo (n = 1300). All active treatments outperformed placebo regarding sTSO at week 1; standardized mean differences (95% credible interval): LEM10 = -0.51 (-0.63, -0.39), LEM5 = -0.48 (-0.60, -0.36), SUV20/15 = -0.21 (-0.33, -0.10), and ZOL6.25 = -0.30 (-0.46, -0.14); sTST at week 1: LEM10 = -0.58 (-0.70, -0.45), LEM5 = -0.33 (-0.46, -0.21), SUV20/15 = -0.34 (-0.46, -0.23), and ZOL6.25 = -0.42 (-0.59, -0.25); and sWASO at week 1: LEM10 = -0.42 (-0.57, -0.28), LEM5 = -0.26 (-0.40, -0.11), SUV20/15 = -0.18 (-0.32, -0.05), and ZOL6.25 = -0.37 (-0.56, -0.18). Although no significant differences were found in discontinuation due to adverse events between each active drug and placebo, LEM10 and SUV20/15 were associated with greater somnolence compared with placebo. LEM10 had the largest effect size compared with placebo for all primary outcomes, although with a risk of somnolence.
Topics: Azepines; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Network Meta-Analysis; Pyridines; Pyrimidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Treatment Outcome; Triazoles
PubMed: 32531478
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2020.05.025 -
Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics 2016Adult Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a prevalent psychiatric condition associated with high disability and frequent comorbidity. Current standard... (Review)
Review
Adult Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a prevalent psychiatric condition associated with high disability and frequent comorbidity. Current standard pharmacotherapy (methylphenidate and atomoxetine) improves ADHD symptoms in the short-term, but poor data were published about long-term treatment. In addition a number of patients present partial or no response to methylphenidate and atomoxetine. Research into the main database sources has been conducted to obtain an overview of alternative pharmacological approaches in adult ADHD patients. Among alternative compounds, amphetamines (mixed amphetamine salts and lisdexamfetamine) have the most robust evidence of efficacy, but they may be associated with serious side effects (e.g. psychotic symptoms or hypertension). Antidepressants, particularly those acting as noradrenaline or dopamine enhancers, have evidence of efficacy, but they should be avoided in patients with comorbid bipolar disorder. Finally metadoxine and lithium may be particularly suitable in case of comorbid alcohol misuse or bipolar disorder.
Topics: Adrenergic alpha-Agonists; Adult; Amphetamines; Antidepressive Agents; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Benzhydryl Compounds; Bridged Bicyclo Compounds, Heterocyclic; Bupropion; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Desipramine; Dopamine Agents; Droxidopa; Drug Combinations; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Guanfacine; Histamine Agents; Humans; Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate; Lithium Compounds; Lobeline; Mecamylamine; Memantine; Modafinil; Morpholines; Nicotinic Agonists; Nicotinic Antagonists; Nomifensine; Paroxetine; Pyridines; Pyridoxine; Pyrrolidonecarboxylic Acid; Quinazolinones; Reboxetine; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Wakefulness-Promoting Agents
PubMed: 26693882
DOI: 10.1586/14737175.2016.1135735 -
Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy Mar 2021: CDK4/6 inhibitor approval for hormone-responsive breast tumors has significantly changed therapeutic algorithms, with three drugs currently approved.: Here, we analyze... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
: CDK4/6 inhibitor approval for hormone-responsive breast tumors has significantly changed therapeutic algorithms, with three drugs currently approved.: Here, we analyze the toxicity profiles of palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Palbociclib and ribociclib showed high rates of hematological toxicity, primarily neutropenia, and were associated with a low rate of severe infections. Abemaciclib was associated with a high rate of gastrointestinal toxicities, primarily diarrhea, of grade 1-2 in most cases. Ribociclib was associated with a high rate of hepatic, and respiratory toxicity and with QTc prolongation. The toxicity rate of ribociclib was higher in metastatic patients than non-metastatic patients, with approximately 33% more grade 3-4 toxicities and 21% more grade 3-4 neutropenic events. A 5% higher risk of diarrhea was observed in postmenopausal patients. Pre-treated patients did not show a higher toxicity rate for palbociclib/ribociclib than previously untreated patients, while a 26% higher risk of any grade neutropenia and 6% higher risk of grade 3-4 diarrhea were observed with abemaciclib.: Considering the similar efficacies and indications of palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib, the evaluation of their toxicity profiles may facilitate treatment choice.
Topics: Aminopyridines; Benzimidazoles; Breast Neoplasms; Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 4; Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 6; Female; Humans; Piperazines; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Purines; Pyridines
PubMed: 33233970
DOI: 10.1080/14737140.2021.1852934