-
Neurological Sciences : Official... Oct 2023The study aims to increase understanding of edaravone's efficacy and safety as an amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) treatment and provide significant insights... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
The study aims to increase understanding of edaravone's efficacy and safety as an amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) treatment and provide significant insights regarding this field's future research.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive search of the Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus databases for randomized controlled trials and observational studies up until September 2022. We evaluated the studies' quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the National Institutes of Health tool.
RESULTS
We included 11 studies with 2845 ALS patients. We found that edaravone improved the survival rate at 18, 24, and 30 months (risk ratio (RR) = 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.02 to 1.24], P = 0.02), (RR = 1.22, 95% CI [1.06 to 1.41], P = 0.007), and (RR = 1.17, 95% CI [1.01 to 1.34], P = 0.03), respectively. However, the administration of edaravone did not result in any significant difference in adverse effects or efficacy outcomes between the two groups, as indicated by a P value greater than 0.05.
CONCLUSION
Edaravone improves survival rates of ALS patients at 18, 24, and 30 months with no adverse effects. However, edaravone does not affect functional outcomes. In order to ensure the validity of our findings and assess the results in accordance with the disease stage, it is essential to carry out additional prospective, rigorous, and high-quality clinical trials. The current study offers preliminary indications regarding the effectiveness and safety of edaravone. However, further comprehensive research is required to establish the generalizability and sustainability of the findings.
Topics: United States; Humans; Edaravone; Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 37249667
DOI: 10.1007/s10072-023-06869-8 -
Medicine Mar 2023Shuxuening injection (SXN) is a traditional Chinese medicine used in the treatment of cardiovascular diseases. Whether it can provide better outcomes when combined with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Shuxuening injection (SXN) is a traditional Chinese medicine used in the treatment of cardiovascular diseases. Whether it can provide better outcomes when combined with edaravone injection (ERI) for the treatment of acute cerebral infarction is not well determined. Therefore, we evaluated the efficacy of ERI combined with SXN versus that of ERI alone in patients with acute cerebral infarction.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang electronic databases were searched up to July 2022. Randomized controlled trials comparing the outcomes of efficacy rate, neurologic impairment, inflammatory factors, and hemorheology were included. Odds ratio or standard mean difference (SMD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to present the overall estimates. The quality of the included trials was evaluated by the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The study was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses.
RESULTS
Seventeen randomized controlled trials were included consisting of 1607 patients. Compared to ERI alone, treatment with ERI plus SXN had a greater effective rate than ER alone (odds ratio = 3.94; 95% CI: 2.85, 5.44; I2 = 0%, P < .00001), a lower National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (SMD= -1.39; 95% CI: -1.73, -1.05; I2 = 71%, P < .00001), lower neural function defect score (SMD= -0.75; 95% CI: -1.06,-0.43; I2 = 67%, P < .00001), and lower level of neuron-specific enolase (SMD= -2.10; 95% CI: -2.85, -1.35; I2 = 85%, P < .00001). ERI plus SXN treatment provided significant improvements in whole blood high shear viscosity (SMD = -0.87; 95% CI: -1.17, -0.57; I2 = 0%, P < .00001), and whole blood low shear viscosity (SMD = -1.50; 95% CI: -1.65, -1.36; I2 = 0%, P < .00001) compared to ERI alone.
CONCLUSION
ERI plus SXN showed better efficacy than ERI alone for patients with acute cerebral infarction. Our study provides evidence supporting the application of ERI plus SXN for acute cerebral infarction.
Topics: Humans; Edaravone; Stroke; Brain Ischemia; Acute Disease; Cerebral Infarction
PubMed: 36862906
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000032929 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2018Ear wax (cerumen) is a normal bodily secretion that can become a problem when it obstructs the ear canal. Symptoms attributed to wax (such as deafness and pain) are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Ear wax (cerumen) is a normal bodily secretion that can become a problem when it obstructs the ear canal. Symptoms attributed to wax (such as deafness and pain) are among the commonest reasons for patients to present to primary care with ear trouble.Wax is part of the ear's self-cleaning mechanism and is usually naturally expelled from the ear canal without causing problems. When this mechanism fails, wax is retained in the canal and may become impacted; interventions to encourage its removal may then be needed. Application of ear drops is one of these methods. Liquids used to remove and soften wax are of several kinds: oil-based compounds (e.g. olive or almond oil); water-based compounds (e.g. sodium bicarbonate or water itself); a combination of the above or non-water, non-oil-based solutions, such as carbamide peroxide (a hydrogen peroxide-urea compound) and glycerol.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of ear drops (or sprays) to remove or aid the removal of ear wax in adults and children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; Cochrane Register of Studies; PubMed; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 23 March 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which a 'cerumenolytic' was compared with no treatment, water or saline, an alternative liquid treatment (oil or almond oil) or another 'cerumenolytic' in adults or children with obstructing or impacted ear wax.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were 1) the proportion of patients (or ears) with complete clearance of ear wax and 2) adverse effects (discomfort, irritation or pain). Secondary outcomes were: extent of wax clearance; proportion of people (or ears) with relief of symptoms due to wax; proportion of people (or ears) requiring further intervention to remove wax; success of mechanical removal of residual wax following treatment; any other adverse effects recorded and cost. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 studies, with 623 participants (900 ears). Interventions included: oil-based treatments (triethanolamine polypeptide, almond oil, benzocaine, chlorobutanol), water-based treatments (docusate sodium, carbamide peroxide, phenazone, choline salicylate, urea peroxide, potassium carbonate), other active comparators (e.g. saline or water alone) and no treatment. Nine of the studies were more than 15 years old.The overall risk of bias across the 10 included studies was low or unclear.
PRIMARY OUTCOME
proportion of patients (or ears) with complete clearance of ear waxSix studies (360 participants; 491 ears) contributed quantitative data and were included in our meta-analyses.Active treatment versus no treatmentOnly one study addressed this comparison. The proportion of ears with complete clearance of ear wax was higher in the active treatment group (22%) compared with the no treatment group (5%) after five days of treatment (risk ratio (RR) 4.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 16.80); one study; 117 ears; NNTB = 8) (low-quality evidence).Active treatment versus water or salineWe found no evidence of a difference in the proportion of patients (or ears) with complete clearance of ear wax when the active treatment group was compared to the water or saline group (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.75; three studies; 213 participants; 257 ears) (low-quality evidence). Two studies applied drops for five days, but one study only applied the drops for 15 minutes. When we excluded this study in a sensitivity analysis it did not change the result.Water or saline versus no treatmentThis comparison was only addressed in the single study cited above (active versus no treatment) and there was no evidence of a difference in the proportion of ears with complete wax clearance when comparing water or saline with no treatment after five days of treatment (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 17.62; one study; 76 ears) (low-quality evidence).Active treatment A versus active treatment BSeveral single studies evaluated 'head-to-head' comparisons between two active treatments. We found no evidence to show that one was superior to any other.Subgroup analysis of oil-based active treatments versus non-oil based active treatmentsWe found no evidence of a difference in this outcome when oil-based treatments were compared with non-oil-based active treatments.
PRIMARY OUTCOME
adverse effects: discomfort, irritation or painOnly seven studies planned to measure and did report this outcome. Only two (141 participants;176 ears) provided useable data. There was no evidence of a significant difference in the number of adverse effects between the types of ear drops in these two studies. We summarised the remaining five studies narratively. All events were mild and reported in fewer than 30 participants across the seven studies (low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomesThree studies reported 'other' adverse effects (how many studies planned to report these is unclear). The available information was limited and included occasional reports of dizziness, unpleasant smell, tinnitus and hearing loss. No significant differences between groups were reported. There were no emergencies or serious adverse effects reported in any of the 10 studies.There was very limited or no information available on our remaining secondary outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Although a number of studies aimed to evaluate whether or not one type of cerumenolytic is more effective than another, there is no high-quality evidence to allow a firm conclusion to be drawn and the answer remains uncertain.A single study suggests that applying ear drops for five days may result in a greater likelihood of complete wax clearance than no treatment at all. However, we cannot conclude whether one type of active treatment is more effective than another and there was no evidence of a difference in efficacy between oil-based and water-based active treatments.There is no evidence to show that using saline or water alone is better or worse than commercially produced cerumenolytics. Equally, there is also no evidence to show that using saline or water alone is better than no treatment.
Topics: Adult; Antipyrine; Benzocaine; Carbamide Peroxide; Carbonates; Cerumen; Child; Chlorobutanol; Choline; Dioctyl Sulfosuccinic Acid; Drug Combinations; Ear Canal; Ethanolamines; Humans; Hygiene; Peroxides; Pharmaceutical Solutions; Plant Oils; Potassium; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Salicylates; Sodium Chloride; Surface-Active Agents; Urea; Water
PubMed: 30043448
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012171.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2018Brain radionecrosis (tissue death caused by radiation) can occur following high-dose radiotherapy to brain tissue and can have a significant impact on a person's quality... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Brain radionecrosis (tissue death caused by radiation) can occur following high-dose radiotherapy to brain tissue and can have a significant impact on a person's quality of life (QoL) and function. The underlying pathophysiological mechanism remains unclear for this condition, which makes establishing effective treatments challenging.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of interventions used for the treatment of brain radionecrosis in adults over 18 years old.
SEARCH METHODS
In October 2017, we searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) for eligible studies. We also searched unpublished data through Physicians Data Query, www.controlled-trials.com/rct, www.clinicaltrials.gov, and www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials for ongoing trials and handsearched relevant conference material.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any intervention directed to treat brain radionecrosis in adults over 18 years old previously treated with radiation therapy to the brain. We anticipated a limited number of RCTs, so we also planned to include all comparative prospective intervention trials and quasi-randomised trials of interventions for brain radionecrosis in adults as long as these studies had a comparison group that reflects the standard of care (i.e. placebo or corticosteroids). Selection bias was likely to be an issue in all the included non-randomised studies therefore results are interpreted with caution.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (CC, PB) independently extracted data from selected studies and completed a 'Risk of bias' assessment. For dichotomous outcomes, the odds ratio (OR) for the outcome of interest was reported. For continuous outcomes, treatment effect was reported as mean difference (MD) between treatment arms with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS
Two RCTs and one prospective non-randomised study evaluating pharmacological interventions met the inclusion criteria for this review. As each study evaluated a different drug or intervention using different endpoints, a meta-analysis was not possible. There were no trials of non-pharmacological interventions that met the inclusion criteria.A very small randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of bevacizumab versus placebo reported that 100% (7/7) of participants on bevacizumab had reduction in brain oedema by at least 25% and reduction in post-gadolinium enhancement, whereas all those receiving placebo had clinical or radiological worsening or both. This was an encouraging finding but due to the small sample size we did not report a relative effect. The authors also failed to provide adequate details regarding the randomisation and blinding procedures Therefore, the certainty of this evidence is low and a larger RCT adhering to reporting standards is needed.An open-label RCT demonstrated a greater reduction in brain oedema (T2 hyperintensity) in the edaravone plus corticosteroid group than in the corticosteroid alone group (MD was 3.03 (95% CI 0.14 to 5.92; low-certainty evidence due to high risk of bias and imprecision); although the result approached borderline significance, there was no evidence of any important difference in the reduction in post-gadolinium enhancement between arms (MD = 0.47, 95% CI - 0.80 to 1.74; low-certainty evidence due to high risk of bias and imprecision).In the RCT of bevacizumab versus placebo, all seven participants receiving bevacizumab were reported to have neurological improvement, whereas five of seven participants on placebo had neurological worsening (very low-certainty evidence due to small sample size and concerns over validity of analyses). While no adverse events were noted with placebo, three severe adverse events were noted with bevacizumab, which included aspiration pneumonia, pulmonary embolus and superior sagittal sinus thrombosis. In the RCT of corticosteroids with or without edaravone, the participants who received the combination treatment were noted to have significantly greater clinical improvement than corticosteroids alone based on LENT/SOMA scale (OR = 2.51, 95% CI 1.26 to 5.01; low-certainty evidence due to open-label design). No differences in treatment toxicities were observed between arms.One included prospective non-randomised study of alpha-tocopherol (vitamin E) versus no active treatment was found but it did not include any radiological assessment. As only one included study was a double-blinded randomised controlled trial, the other studies were prone to selection and detection biases.None of the included studies reported quality of life outcomes or adequately reported details about corticosteroid requirements.A limited number of prospective studies were identified but subsequently excluded as these studies had a limited number of participants evaluating different pharmacological interventions using variable endpoints.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is a lack of good certainty evidence to help quantify the risks and benefits of interventions for the treatment of brain radionecrosis after radiotherapy or radiosurgery. In an RCT of 14 patients, bevacizumab showed radiological response which was associated with minimal improvement in cognition or symptom severity. Although it was a randomised trial by design, the small sample size limits the quality of data. A trial of edaravone plus corticosteroids versus corticosteroids alone reported greater reduction in the surrounding oedema with combination treatment but no effect on the enhancing radionecrosis lesion. Due to the open-label design and wide confidence intervals in the results, the quality of this data was also low. There was no evidence to support any non-pharmacological interventions for the treatment of radionecrosis. Further prospective randomised studies of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions are needed to generate stronger evidence. Two ongoing RCTs, one evaluating bevacizumab and one evaluating hyperbaric oxygen therapy were identified.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Antipyrine; Bevacizumab; Brain; Brain Edema; Drug Therapy, Combination; Edaravone; Gadolinium; Humans; Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Radiation Injuries; Radiosurgery; Radiotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29987845
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011492.pub2