-
APMIS : Acta Pathologica,... Mar 2024Molnupiravir is incorporated into the viral genome, thereby increasing errors, mismatching, and misdirecting the viral polymerase thereby, halting viral RNA replication... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Molnupiravir is incorporated into the viral genome, thereby increasing errors, mismatching, and misdirecting the viral polymerase thereby, halting viral RNA replication of SARS-CoV-2. Following PRISMA guidelines, a thorough literature search was performed on electronic and medical databases from December 2022 till January 2023. Molnupiravir 800 mg showed significance in creating viral RNA error rate at Day 5 (WMD: 4.91; 95% CI; [1.19, 8.63] p = 0.01; I = 0%). Similarly, at 400 mg, Molnupiravir creates an RNA error rate (WMD: 2.27; 95% CI; 2.27 [0.50, 4.65] p = 0.02; I = 0%). Furthermore, exhibit a significant outcome for mean change in SARS-CoV-2 RNA viral load from baseline in nasopharyngeal sample at 800 mg Molnupiravir on Day 3 (WMD: -0.22; 95% CI; [-0.35, -0.08] p = 0.002; I = 0%), Day 5 (WMD: -0.32; 95% CI; [-0.53, -0.11] p = 0.003; I = 24%) and overall pooled analysis (WMD: -0.17; 95% CI; [-0.29, 0.33] p = 0.003; I = 32%). Moreover, Molnupiravir 400 mg significantly reduced the incidence of death compared to the placebo group (RR: 0.17; 95% CI; [0.07, 0.43] p = 0.0002; I = 0%). Molnupiravir effectively treats SARS-CoV-2 patients by eliminating the virus from the host.
Topics: Humans; Antiviral Agents; COVID-19; Cytidine; Hydroxylamines; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 38288881
DOI: 10.1111/apm.13373 -
International Journal of Antimicrobial... Mar 2024This study aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of small-molecule antivirals for treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of small-molecule antivirals for treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
METHODS
Seven databases were searched from their inception to 01 June 2023. The risk of bias in randomised controlled trials and retrospective studies was evaluated individually using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Newcastle Ottawa Scale.
RESULTS
In total, 160 studies involving 933 409 COVID-19 patients were evaluated. Compared with placebo or standard of care, proxalutamide demonstrated remarkable efficacy in reducing mortality rates, hospitalisation rates, serious adverse events, and the need for mechanical ventilation. Furthermore, it significantly enhanced both the rate of clinical improvement and expedited the duration of clinical recovery when compared with control groups. In patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, proxalutamide exhibited the above advantages, except for mortality reduction. Triazavirin was the most effective treatment for reducing the time required for viral clearance and improving the discharge rate. Leritrelvir and VV116 were ranked first in terms of enhancing the viral clearance rate on days 7 and 14, respectively. Molnupiravir was the most effective treatment for reducing the need for oxygen support. Overall, these findings remained consistent across the various subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS
A thorough evaluation of effectiveness, applicable to both mild-to-moderate and unstratified populations, highlights the specific advantages of proxalutamide, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, triazavirin, azvudine, molnupiravir, and VV116 in combating COVID-19. Additional clinical data are required to confirm the efficacy and safety of simnotrelvir/ritonavir and leritrelvir. The safety profiles of these antivirals were deemed acceptable.
Topics: Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; COVID-19; Retrospective Studies; Ritonavir; Antiviral Agents; Cytidine; Hydroxylamines
PubMed: 38244811
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2024.107096 -
American Journal of Therapeutics
Meta-Analysis
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Cytidine; Hydroxylamines; Antiviral Agents; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 38231582
DOI: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000001541 -
Heart Failure Reviews Mar 2024Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is the most common heritable myocardial disorder worldwide. Current pharmacological treatment options are limited. Mavacamten, a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is the most common heritable myocardial disorder worldwide. Current pharmacological treatment options are limited. Mavacamten, a first-in-class cardiac myosin inhibitor, targets the main underlying pathology of HCM. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Mavacamten in patients with HCM. PRISMA flow chart was utilized using PubMed, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases for all up-to-date studies using pre-defined keywords. Pre-specified efficacy outcomes comprised several parameters, including an improvement in peak oxygen consumption (pVO2) and ≥ 1 NYHA class, the need for septal reduction therapy (SRT), change from baseline in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), changes in biochemical markers and LVEF, along with peak left ventricular outflow tract gradient at rest and after Valsalva maneuver. Safety outcomes included morbidity and serious adverse events. This systematic review included five studies, four RCTs and one non-randomized control trial comprised a total of 524 (Mavacamten [273, 54.3%] vs placebo [230, 45.7%] adult (≥ 18 years) patients with a mean age of 56 years. The study. comprised patients with Caucasian and Chinese ethnicity and patients with obstructive (oHCM) and non-obstructive (nHCM) HCM. Most baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment and placebo groups. Mavacamten showed a statistically significant increase in the frequency of the primary composite endpoint (RR = 1.92, 95% CI [1.28, 2.88]), ≥ 1 NYHA class improvement (RR = 2.10, 95% CI [1.66, 2.67]), a significant decrease in LVEF, peak left ventricular outflow tract gradient at rest and after Valsalva maneuver. Mavacamten also showed a significant reduction in SRT rates (RR = 0.29, 95% CI [0.21, 0.40], p < 0.00001), KCCQ clinical summary scores (MD = 8.08, 95% CI [4.80, 11.37], P < 0.00001) troponin levels and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels. However, there was no statistically significant difference between Mavacamten and placebo regarding the change from baseline peak oxygen consumption. Mavacamten use resulted in a small increase in adverse events but no statistically significant increment in serious adverse events. Our study showed that Mavacamten is a safe and effective treatment option for Caucasian and Chinese patients with HCM on the short-term. Further research is needed to explore the long-term safety and efficacy of Mavacamten with HCM. In addition, adequately powered studies including patients with nHCM is needed to ascertain befits of Mavacamten in those patients.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Middle Aged; Cardiomyopathy, Hypertrophic; Heart; Benzylamines; Myocardium; Uracil
PubMed: 38112937
DOI: 10.1007/s10741-023-10375-6 -
Antiviral Research Jan 2024Remdesivir, molnupiravir, and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir are three antiviral agents approved by FDA emergency authorization for treating mild to moderate symptomatic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Remdesivir, molnupiravir, and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir are three antiviral agents approved by FDA emergency authorization for treating mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 adult outpatients at high risk for hospitalization and death.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and safety of these antivirals based on updated published RCT and real-world data.
STUDY DESIGN
This systematic review followed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis framework guidelines. We searched all publications up to January 2023. RRs and 95% CIs for death, hospitalization, and adverse events were calculated.
RESULTS
Six RCTs and seven cohort studies were included, with 1,456,523 participants, of whom 50,979 were treated with antivirals. Remdesivir was associated with the lowest probability of hospitalization and death compared to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir (P-scores 0.99 and 0.90, respectively, for remdesivir, 0.64 and 0.55, respectively for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and 0.26 and 0.49, respectively for molnupiravir). Based on indirect comparisons, remdesivir was associated with a statistically significant decreased risk for hospitalization compared to molnupiravir (RR 0.09; 95% CI 0.02-0.40) and to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (RR 0.11; 95% CI 0.03-0.73). No statistically significant difference was found between antivirals in the mortality risk reduction and the risk for side effects.
CONCLUSIONS
This is the most comprehensive network meta-analysis integrating RCTs and real-world data. In our indirect comparison, remdesivir was associated with the highest efficacy in preventing hospitalization among high risk symptomatic COVID-19 outpatients, compared to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir. This finding supports current guidelines, and may have importance when deciding which antiviral to use, together with other important factors.
Topics: Adult; Humans; COVID-19; Network Meta-Analysis; Outpatients; Ritonavir; Antiviral Agents; Hydroxylamines; Cytidine; Nitriles; Lactams; Proline; Leucine
PubMed: 38056602
DOI: 10.1016/j.antiviral.2023.105768 -
Viruses Nov 2023Acute hepatitis B infection is associated with severe liver disease and chronic sequelae in some cases. The purpose of this review was to determine the efficacy of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acute hepatitis B infection is associated with severe liver disease and chronic sequelae in some cases. The purpose of this review was to determine the efficacy of nucleoside analogues (NA) (lamivudine versus entecavir) compared to placebo or no intervention for treating acute primary HBV infection.
METHODS
A meta-analysis for drug intervention was performed, following a fixed-effect model. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized studies that evaluated the outcomes of NA in acute hepatitis B infection were included. The following outcomes were considered: virological cure (PCR negative), elimination of acute infection (seroconversion of HBsAg), mortality, and serious adverse events.
RESULTS
Five trials with 627 adult participants with severe acute hepatitis B defined by biochemical and serologic parameters were included. Virological cure did not favor any intervention: OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.7 ( = 0.90), I2 = 58%. Seroconversion of HBsAg to negative favored placebo/standard-of-care compared to lamivudine: OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.9 ( = 0.02), I2 = 31%. The only trial that compared entecavir and lamivudine favored entecavir over lamivudine (OR: 3.64, 95% CI 1.31-10.13; 90 participants). Adverse events were mild.
CONCLUSION
There is insufficient evidence that NA obtain superior efficacy compared with placebo/standard-of-care in patients with acute viral hepatitis, based on low quality evidence.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Lamivudine; Antiviral Agents; Hepatitis B Surface Antigens; Hepatitis B; Hepatitis B virus; Hepatitis B, Chronic; Treatment Outcome; DNA, Viral
PubMed: 38005918
DOI: 10.3390/v15112241 -
JAMA Oct 2023Gefapixant represents an emerging therapy for patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Gefapixant represents an emerging therapy for patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of gefapixant for the treatment of adults with refractory or unexplained chronic cough.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science from November 2014 to July 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
Two reviewers independently screened for parallel and crossover randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared, in patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough, either gefapixant with placebo, or 2 or more doses of gefapixant with or without placebo.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently extracted data. A frequentist random-effects dose-response meta-analysis or pairwise meta-analysis was used for each outcome. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach was used to rate the certainty in whether patients would perceive the effects as important (greater than the minimal important difference [MID]) or small (less than the MID).
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Cough frequency (measured using the VitaloJAK cough monitor; MID, 20%), cough severity (measured using the 100-mm visual analog scale [VAS]; higher score is worse; MID, 30 mm), cough-specific quality of life (measured using the Leicester Cough Questionnaire [LCQ]; score range, 3 [maximal impairment] to 21 [no impairment]; MID, 1.3 points), treatment-related adverse events, adverse events leading to discontinuation, and taste-related adverse events.
RESULTS
Nine RCTs including 2980 patients were included in the primary analysis. Compared with placebo, gefapixant (45 mg twice daily) had small effects on awake cough frequency (17.6% reduction [95% CI, 10.6%-24.0%], moderate certainty), cough severity on the 100-mm VAS (mean difference, -6.2 mm [95% CI, -4.1 to -8.4]; high certainty), and cough-specific quality of life on the LCQ (mean difference, 1.0 points [95% CI, 0.7-1.4]; moderate certainty). Compared with placebo, gefapixant (45 mg twice daily) probably caused an important increase in treatment-related adverse events (32 more per 100 patients [95% CI, 13-64 more], moderate certainty) and taste-related adverse events (32 more per 100 patients [95% CI, 22-46 more], high certainty). High-certainty evidence suggests that gefapixant (15 mg twice daily) had small effects on taste-related adverse events (6 more per 100 patients [95% CI, 5-8 more]).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Compared with placebo, gefapixant (45 mg orally twice daily) led to modest improvements in cough frequency, cough severity, and cough-specific quality of life but increased taste-related adverse events.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Cough; Pyrimidines; Quality of Life; Sulfonamides; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Treatment Outcome; Chronic Disease; Taste
PubMed: 37694849
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.18035