-
Scientific Reports Jun 2024There have been 774,075,242 cases of COVID-19 and 7,012,986 deaths worldwide as of January 2024. In the early stages of the pandemic, there was an urgent need to reduce... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A systematic review and meta-analysis, investigating dose and time of fluvoxamine treatment efficacy for COVID-19 clinical deterioration, death, and Long-COVID complications.
There have been 774,075,242 cases of COVID-19 and 7,012,986 deaths worldwide as of January 2024. In the early stages of the pandemic, there was an urgent need to reduce the severity of the disease and prevent the need for hospitalization to avoid stress on healthcare systems worldwide. The repurposing of drugs to prevent clinical deterioration of COVID-19 patients was trialed in many studies using many different drugs. Fluvoxamine (an SSRI and sigma-1 receptor agonist) was initially identified to potentially provide beneficial effects in COVID-19-infected patients, preventing clinical deterioration and the need for hospitalization. Fourteen clinical studies have been carried out to date, with seven of those being randomized placebo-controlled studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis covers the literature from the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 in late 2019 until January 2024. Search terms related to fluvoxamine, such as its trade names and chemical names, along with words related to COVID-19, such as SARS-CoV-2 and coronavirus, were used in literature databases including PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and the ClinicalTrials.gov database from NIH, to identify the trials used in the subsequent analysis. Clinical deterioration and death data were extracted from these studies where available and used in the meta-analysis. A total of 7153 patients were studied across 14 studies (both open-label and double-blind placebo-controlled). 681 out of 3553 (19.17%) in the standard care group and 255 out of 3600 (7.08%) in the fluvoxamine-treated group experienced clinical deterioration. The estimated average log odds ratio was 1.087 (95% CI 0.200 to 1.973), which differed significantly from zero (z = 2.402, p = 0.016). The seven placebo-controlled studies resulted in a log odds ratio of 0.359 (95% CI 0.1111 to 0.5294), which differed significantly from zero (z = 3.103, p = 0.002). The results of this study identified fluvoxamine as effective in preventing clinical deterioration, and subgrouping analysis suggests that earlier treatment with a dose of 200 mg or above provides the best outcomes. We hope the outcomes of this study can help design future studies into respiratory viral infections and potentially improve clinical outcomes.
Topics: Fluvoxamine; Humans; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Treatment Outcome; Clinical Deterioration; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 38862591
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-64260-9 -
PloS One 2024Recently, several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of fluvoxamine have been successfully conducted for the treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Recently, several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of fluvoxamine have been successfully conducted for the treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine in patients with COVID-19.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for RCTs which were performed to evaluate fluvoxamine and placebo up to January 31, 2024. Review Manager 5.3 was used to perform meta-analysis. The risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) was analyzed and calculated with a random effect model.
RESULTS
We pooled 4,711 participants from six RCTs (2,382 in the fluvoxamine group and 2,329 in the placebo group). Compared to the placebo group, the fluvoxamine group had a significantly lower rate of clinical deterioration (RR, 0.73; P = 0.004; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.90; I2 = 0%) and hospitalization (RR, 0.76; P = 0.04; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.99; I2 = 0%). In the meantime, compared with the placebo group, fluvoxamine group did not show any higher risk of AEs (P = 0.13 and 0.91, respectively) in safety outcomes analysis. The subgroup analysis showed that fluvoxamine treatment performed more than 200 mg daily appears to be more effective than those performed less than 200 mg daily in reducing clinical deterioration and hospitalization risks, while not exhibiting higher AE and SAE risks than placebo group.
CONCLUSION
Fluvoxamine for patients with COVID-19, especially those who take 200 mg or more daily, is superior to the placebo group in reducing clinical deterioration and hospitalization, and did not show any higher risk of AEs and SAEs in safety concerns, which might be a promising intervention for COVID-19.
Topics: Fluvoxamine; Humans; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Treatment Outcome; Hospitalization
PubMed: 38753761
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300512 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2024Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) contribute to the treatment of patients with anaplastic thyroid cancer (ATC). Although prospective clinical studies of TKIs exhibit...
BACKGROUND
Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) contribute to the treatment of patients with anaplastic thyroid cancer (ATC). Although prospective clinical studies of TKIs exhibit limited efficacy, whether ATC patients benefit from TKI treatment in real-world clinical practice may enlighten future explorations. Therefore, we conducted this effective analysis based on real-world retrospective studies to illustrate the efficacy of TKI treatment in ATC patients.
METHODS
We systematically searched the online databases on September 03, 2023. Survival curves were collected and reconstructed to summarize the pooled curves. Responses were analyzed by using the "meta" package. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR).
RESULTS
12 studies involving 227 patients were enrolled in the study. Therapeutic strategies included: anlotinib, lenvatinib, dabrafenib plus trametinib, vemurafenib, pembrolizumab plus dabrafenib and trametinib, pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, pembrolizumab plus trametinib, and sorafenib. The pooled median OS and PFS were 6.37 months (95% CI 4.19-10.33) and 5.50 months (95% CI 2.17-12.03). The integrated ORR and DCR were 32% (95% CI 23%-41%) and 40% (95% CI 12%-74%).
CONCLUSION
In real-world clinical practice, ATC patients could benefit from TKI therapy. In future studies, more basic experiments and clinical explorations are needed to enhance the effects of TKIs in the treatment of patients with ATC.
Topics: Humans; Thyroid Carcinoma, Anaplastic; Retrospective Studies; Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors; Prospective Studies; Thyroid Neoplasms; Imidazoles; Oximes; Phenylurea Compounds; Quinolines
PubMed: 38469143
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2024.1345203 -
International Journal of Molecular... Jan 2024Craniopharyngiomas present unique challenges in surgical management due to their proximity to critical neurovascular structures. This systematic review investigates... (Review)
Review
Craniopharyngiomas present unique challenges in surgical management due to their proximity to critical neurovascular structures. This systematic review investigates genetic and immunological markers as potential targets for therapy in craniopharyngiomas, assessing their involvement in tumorigenesis, and their influence on prognosis and treatment strategies. The systematic review adhered to PRISMA guidelines, with a thorough literature search conducted on PubMed, Ovid MED-LINE, and Ovid EMBASE. Employing MeSH terms and Boolean operators, the search focused on craniopharyngiomas, targeted or molecular therapy, and clinical outcomes or adverse events. Inclusion criteria encompassed English language studies, clinical trials (randomized or non-randomized), and investigations into adamantinomatous or papillary craniopharyngiomas. Targeted therapies, either standalone or combined with chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy, were examined if they included clinical outcomes or adverse event analysis. Primary outcomes assessed disease response through follow-up MRI scans, categorizing responses as follows: complete response (CR), near-complete response (NCR), partial response, and stable or progressive disease based on lesion regression percentages. Secondary outcomes included treatment type and duration, as well as adverse events. A total of 891 papers were initially identified, of which 26 studies spanning from 2000 to 2023 were finally included in the review. Two tables highlighted adamantinomatous and papillary craniopharyngiomas, encompassing 7 and 19 studies, respectively. For adamantinomatous craniopharyngiomas, Interferon-2α was the predominant targeted therapy (29%), whereas dabrafenib took precedence (70%) for papillary craniopharyngiomas. Treatment durations varied, ranging from 1.7 to 28 months. Positive responses, including CR or NCR, were observed in both types of craniopharyngiomas (29% CR for adamantinomatous; 32% CR for papillary). Adverse events, such as constitutional symptoms and skin changes, were reported, emphasizing the need for vigilant monitoring and personalized management to enhance treatment tolerability. Overall, the data highlighted a diverse landscape of targeted therapies with encouraging responses and manageable adverse events, underscoring the importance of ongoing research and individualized patient care in the exploration of treatment options for craniopharyngiomas. In the realm of targeted therapies for craniopharyngiomas, tocilizumab and dabrafenib emerged as prominent choices for adamantinomatous and papillary cases, respectively. While adverse events were common, their manageable nature underscored the importance of vigilant monitoring and personalized management. Acknowledging limitations, future research should prioritize larger, well-designed clinical trials and standardized treatment protocols to enhance our understanding of the impact of targeted therapies on craniopharyngioma patients.
Topics: Humans; Ameloblastoma; Craniopharyngioma; Imidazoles; Oximes; Pituitary Neoplasms
PubMed: 38255797
DOI: 10.3390/ijms25020723 -
Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia =... Apr 2023We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the diagnostic test accuracy of ancillary investigations for declaration of death by neurologic criteria... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the diagnostic test accuracy of ancillary investigations for declaration of death by neurologic criteria (DNC) in infants and children.
SOURCE
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases from their inception to June 2021 for relevant randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and abstracts published in the last three years. We identified relevant studies using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis methodology and a two-stage review. We assessed the risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 tool, and applied Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology to determine the certainty of evidence. A fixed-effects model was used to meta-analyze pooled sensitivity and specificity data for each ancillary investigation with at least two studies.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
Thirty-nine eligible manuscripts assessing 18 unique ancillary investigations (n = 866) were identified. The sensitivity and specificity ranged from 0.00 to 1.00 and 0.50 to 1.00, respectively. The quality of evidence was low to very low for all ancillary investigations, with the exception of radionuclide dynamic flow studies for which it was graded as moderate. Radionuclide scintigraphy using the lipophilic radiopharmaceutical Tc-hexamethylpropyleneamine oxime (HMPAO) with or without tomographic imaging were the most accurate ancillary investigations with a combined sensitivity of 0.99 (95% highest density interval [HDI], 0.89 to 1.00) and specificity of 0.97 (95% HDI, 0.65 to 1.00).
CONCLUSION
The ancillary investigation for DNC in infants and children with the greatest accuracy appears to be radionuclide scintigraphy using HMPAO with or without tomographic imaging; however, the certainty of the evidence is low. Nonimaging modalities performed at the bedside require further investigation.
STUDY REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42021278788); registered 16 October 2021.
Topics: Humans; Child; Infant; Bias; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 37131035
DOI: 10.1007/s12630-023-02418-1 -
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy Dec 2023Fluvoxamine may be beneficial for the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) because of its effect on the sigma-1 receptor. Available evidence from randomized... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Fluvoxamine may be beneficial for the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) because of its effect on the sigma-1 receptor. Available evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) has shown conflicting results.
OBJECTIVE
This study sought to analyze the efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine as an outpatient treatment for Covid-19.
METHODS
Using specific keywords, we comprehensively go through the potential articles on PubMed, Scopus, Europe PMC, and ClinicalTrials.gov sources until February 1, 2023. We collected all published clinical trials on fluvoxamine and Covid-19. We were using Review Manager 5.4 to conduct statistical analysis.
RESULTS
We include a total of 6 trials. Our pooled analysis revealed that fluvoxamine did not offer any significant benefit when compared with placebo in reducing the risk of clinical deterioration (risk ratio [RR] = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.65-1.06, = 0.14, = 29%), and hospitalization (RR = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.62-1.04, = 0.09, = 0%) of Covid-19 outpatients. The serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This study indicates that although safe, fluvoxamine was not effective for outpatient treatment of Covid-19. Until more evidence can be obtained from larger RCTs, our study did not encourage the use of fluvoxamine as routine management for patients with Covid-19.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Fluvoxamine; Outpatients; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Europe
PubMed: 37002592
DOI: 10.1177/10600280231162243 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... May 2023The efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the treatment of acute COVID-19 is still under investigation, with conflicting results reported from... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the treatment of acute COVID-19 is still under investigation, with conflicting results reported from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Different dosing regimens may have contributed to the contradictory findings.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of SSRIs and the effect of different dosing regimens on the treatment of acute COVID-19.
DATA SOURCES
Seven databases were searched from January 2020 to December 2022. Trial registries, previous reviews, and preprint servers were hand-searched.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
RCTs and observational studies with no language restrictions.
PARTICIPANTS
COVID-19 inpatients/outpatients.
INTERVENTIONS
SSRIs prescribed after diagnosis were compared against a placebo or standard of care.
ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS
Risk of bias was rated using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials version 2.0 and Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions.
METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS
Outcomes were mortality, hospitalization, composite of hospitalization/emergency room visits, hypoxemia, requirement for supplemental oxygen, ventilator support, and serious adverse events. RCT data were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses. Observational findings were narratively described. Subgroup analyses were performed on the basis of SSRI dose, and sensitivity analyses were performed excluding studies with a high risk of bias. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework was used to assess the quality of evidence.
RESULTS
Six RCTs (N = 4197) and five observational studies (N = 1156) were included. Meta-analyses associated fluvoxamine with reduced mortality (risk ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.63-0.82) and hospitalization (risk ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.99) on the basis of moderate quality of evidence. Medium-dose fluvoxamine (100 mg twice a day) was associated with reduced mortality, hospitalization, and composite of hospitalization/emergency room visits, but low-dose fluvoxamine (50 mg twice a day) was not. Fluvoxamine was not associated with increased serious adverse events. Observational studies support the use of fluvoxamine and highlight fluoxetine as a possible alternative to SSRIs for the treatment of COVID-19.
DISCUSSION
Fluvoxamine remains a candidate pharmacotherapy for treating COVID-19 in outpatients. Medium-dose fluvoxamine may be preferable over low-dose fluvoxamine.
Topics: Humans; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; COVID-19; Fluoxetine; Fluvoxamine
PubMed: 36657488
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2023.01.010 -
European Neuropsychopharmacology : the... Jan 2023Several psychotropic drugs, including antidepressants (AD), mood stabilizers, and antipsychotics (AP) have been suggested to have favorable effects in the treatment of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Several psychotropic drugs, including antidepressants (AD), mood stabilizers, and antipsychotics (AP) have been suggested to have favorable effects in the treatment of COVID-19. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to collect evidence from studies concerning the scientific evidence for the repurposing of psychotropic drugs in COVID-19 treatment. Two independent authors searched PubMed-MEDLINE, Scopus, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases, and reviewed the reference lists of articles for eligible articles published up to 13th December 2021. All computational, preclinical and clinical (observational and/or RCTs) studies on the effect of any psychotropic drug on Sars-CoV-2 or patients with COVID-19 were considered for inclusion. We conducted random effect meta-analyses on clinical studies reporting the effect of AD or AP on COVID-19 outcomes. 29 studies were included in the synthesis: 15 clinical, 9 preclinical, and 5 computational studies. 9 clinical studies could be included in the quantitative analyses. AD did not increase the risk of severe COVID-19 (RR= 1.71; CI 0.65-4.51) or mortality (RR=0.94; CI 0.81-1.09). Fluvoxamine was associated with a reduced risk of mortality for COVID-19 (OR=0.15; CI 0.02-0.95). AP increased the risk of severe COVID-19 (RR=3.66; CI 2.76-4.85) and mortality (OR=1.53; CI 1.15-2.03). Fluvoxamine might be a possible candidate for psychotropic drug repurposing in COVID-19 due to its anti-inflammatory and antiviral potential, while evidence on other AD is still controversial. Although AP are associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes, their use should be evaluated case to case and ongoing treatment with antipsychotics should be not discontinued in psychiatric patients.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Fluvoxamine; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Drug Repositioning; Psychotropic Drugs; Antipsychotic Agents
PubMed: 36399837
DOI: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2022.10.004 -
Journal of Infection and Public Health Nov 2022This meta-analysis investigated the use of fluvoxamine for the treatment of nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
This meta-analysis investigated the use of fluvoxamine for the treatment of nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19.
METHODS
PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library databases, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for studies published before June 25, 2022. Only clinical studies that compared the efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine with other alternatives or placebos in the treatment of nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 were included.
RESULTS
Four studies with 1814 patients, of whom 912 received fluvoxamine, were included in this study. Compared with the control group receiving placebo or no therapy, the study group receiving fluvoxamine demonstrated a lower risk of hospitalization and emergency department (ED) visits (odds ratio [OR], 0.59; 95 % CI, 0.44-0.79; I = 26 %). In addition, the rate of hospitalization remained significantly lower in patients who received fluvoxamine than in the control group (OR, 0.69; 95 % CI, 0.51-0.94; I = 36 %). Although the study group demonstrated a lower risk of requirement of mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit admission, and mortality than the control group, these differences were nonsignificant. Finally, fluvoxamine use was associated with a similar risk of adverse events as that observed in the control group.
CONCLUSION
Fluvoxamine can be safely used in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 and can reduce the hospitalization rate or ED visits in these patients.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Fluvoxamine; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Patients; Respiration, Artificial
PubMed: 36272390
DOI: 10.1016/j.jiph.2022.10.010 -
Molecular Psychiatry Jan 2023A systematic review and random-effects model network meta-analysis were conducted to compare the efficacy, acceptability, tolerability, and safety of antidepressants to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A systematic review and random-effects model network meta-analysis were conducted to compare the efficacy, acceptability, tolerability, and safety of antidepressants to treat adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) in the maintenance phase. This study searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases and included only double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials with an enrichment design: patients were stabilized on the antidepressant of interest during the open-label study and then randomized to receive the same antidepressant or placebo. The outcomes were the 6-month relapse rate (primary outcome, efficacy), all-cause discontinuation (acceptability), discontinuation due to adverse events (tolerability), and the incidence of individual adverse events. The risk ratio with a 95% credible interval was calculated. The meta-analysis comprised 34 studies (n = 9384, mean age = 43.80 years, and %females = 68.10%) on 20 antidepressants (agomelatine, amitriptyline, bupropion, citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, levomilnacipran, milnacipran, mirtazapine, nefazodone, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, tianeptine, venlafaxine, vilazodone, and vortioxetine) and a placebo. In terms of the 6-month relapse rate, amitriptyline, citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, mirtazapine, nefazodone, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, tianeptine, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine outperformed placebo. Compared to placebo, desvenlafaxine, paroxetine, sertraline, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine had lower all-cause discontinuation; however, sertraline had a higher discontinuation rate due to adverse events. Compared to placebo, venlafaxine was associated with a lower incidence of dizziness, while desvenlafaxine, sertraline, and vortioxetine were associated with a higher incidence of nausea/vomiting. In conclusion, desvenlafaxine, paroxetine, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine had reasonable efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability in the treatment of adults with stable MDD.
Topics: Female; Humans; Adult; Depressive Disorder, Major; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Sertraline; Citalopram; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Vortioxetine; Fluoxetine; Paroxetine; Mirtazapine; Amitriptyline; Desvenlafaxine Succinate; Fluvoxamine; Reboxetine; Network Meta-Analysis; Antidepressive Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36253442
DOI: 10.1038/s41380-022-01824-z