-
The Western Journal of Emergency... May 2020In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared the spread of SARS-CoV-2 a global pandemic. To date, coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has spread to over 200...
In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared the spread of SARS-CoV-2 a global pandemic. To date, coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has spread to over 200 countries, leading to over 1.6 million cases and over 99,000 deaths. Given that there is neither a vaccine nor proven treatment for COVID-19, there is currently an urgent need for effective pharmacotherapy. To address the need for an effective treatment of SARS-CoV-2 during the worldwide pandemic, this systematic review of intravenous (IV) remdesivir was performed. Remdesivir, an anti-viral prodrug originally developed to treat Ebola virus disease, has shown broad spectrum activity against the Coronavirus family. A recent case report reported improvement of clinical symptoms with remdesivir in a patient with COVID-19. After conducting a systematic search of 18 clinical trial registries and three large scientific databases, we identified 86 potentially eligible items. Following removal of duplicates (n = 21), eligible studies were reviewed independently by two authors. After the first round of screening, inter-rater agreement was 98.5% (κ = 0.925). After the second round of full-text screening, inter-rater agreement was 100%. A total of seven ongoing and recruiting clinical trials of remdesivir (100-200 milligrams, intravenous [IV]) were included. We identified the following primary outcomes: patients discharged (n = 2); time to clinical status improvement (n = 2); improved O2 saturation (n = 2); body temperature normalization (n = 2); and clinical status (n = 1). Secondary outcomes in all identified studies included documentation of adverse events. Phase 3 trials are expected to be completed between April 2020-2023. Therefore, despite supportive data from in vitro and in vivo studies, the clinical effectiveness of IV remdesivir for treatment of COVID-19 and potential side effects remain incompletely defined in the human population.
Topics: Adenosine Monophosphate; Administration, Intravenous; Alanine; Antiviral Agents; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Clinical Trials as Topic; Coronavirus Infections; Humans; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; SARS-CoV-2; Treatment Outcome; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 32726230
DOI: 10.5811/westjem.2020.5.47658 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2019Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Early intervention for those with high cardiovascular risk is crucial in improving... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Early intervention for those with high cardiovascular risk is crucial in improving patient outcomes. Traditional prevention strategies for CVD have focused on conventional risk factors, such as overweight, dyslipidaemia, diabetes, and hypertension, which may reflect the potential for cardiovascular insult. Natriuretic peptides (NPs), including B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), are well-established biomarkers for the detection and diagnostic evaluation of heart failure. They are of interest for CVD prevention because they are secreted by the heart as a protective response to cardiovascular stress, strain, and damage. Therefore, measuring NP levels in patients without heart failure may be valuable for risk stratification, to identify those at highest risk of CVD who would benefit most from intensive risk reduction measures.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of natriuretic peptide (NP)-guided treatment for people with cardiovascular risk factors and without heart failure.
SEARCH METHODS
Searches of the following bibliographic databases were conducted up to 9 July 2019: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. Three clinical trial registries were also searched in July 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials enrolling adults with one or more cardiovascular risk factors and without heart failure, which compared NP-based screening and subsequent NP-guided treatment versus standard care in all settings (i.e. community, hospital).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and evaluated risk of bias. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for continuous data. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing data and to verify crucial study characteristics. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, two review authors independently assessed the quality of the evidence and GRADE profiler (GRADEPRO) was used to import data from Review Manager to create a 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two randomised controlled trials (three reports) with 1674 participants, with mean age between 64.1 and 67.8 years. Follow-up ranged from 2 years to mean 4.3 years.For primary outcome measures, effect estimates from a single study showed uncertainty for the effect of NP-guided treatment on cardiovascular mortality in patients with cardiovascular risk factors and without heart failure (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.17; 1 study; 300 participants; low-quality evidence). Pooled analysis demonstrated that in comparison to standard care, NP-guided treatment probably reduces the risk of cardiovascular hospitalisation (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.68; 2 studies; 1674 participants; moderate-quality evidence). This corresponds to a risk of 163 per 1000 in the control group and 85 (95% CI 65 to 111) per 1000 in the NP-guided treatment group.When secondary outcome measures were evaluated, evidence from a pooled analysis showed uncertainty for the effect of NP-guided treatment on all-cause mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.35; 2 studies; 1354 participants; low-quality evidence). Pooled analysis indicates that NP-guided treatment probably reduces the risk of all-cause hospitalisation (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.92; 2 studies; 1354 participants; moderate-quality evidence). This corresponds to a risk of 601 per 1000 in the control group and 499 (95% CI 457 to 553) per 1000 in the NP-guided treatment group. The effect estimate from a single study indicates that NP-guided treatment reduced the risk of ventricular dysfunction (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.91; 1374 participants; high-quality evidence). The risk in this study's control group was 87 per 1000, compared with 53 (95% CI 36 to 79) per 1000 with NP-guided treatment. Results from the same study show that NP-guided treatment does not affect change in NP level at the end of follow-up, relative to standard care (MD -4.06 pg/mL, 95% CI -15.07 to 6.95; 1 study; 1374 participants; moderate-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review shows that NP-guided treatment is likely to reduce ventricular dysfunction and cardiovascular and all-cause hospitalisation for patients who have cardiovascular risk factors and who do not have heart failure. Effects on mortality and natriuretic peptide levels are less certain. Neither of the included studies were powered to evaluate mortality. Available evidence shows uncertainty regarding the effects of NP-guided treatment on both cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality; very low event numbers resulted in a high degree of imprecision in these effect estimates. Evidence also shows that NP-guided treatment may not affect NP level at the end of follow-up.As both trials included in our review were pragmatic studies, non-blinding of patients and practices may have biased results towards a finding of equivalence. Further studies with more adequately powered sample sizes and longer duration of follow-up are required to evaluate the effect of NP-guided treatment on mortality. As two trials are ongoing, one of which is a large multi-centre trial, it is hoped that future iterations of this review will benefit from larger sample sizes across a wider geographical area.
PubMed: 31613983
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013015.pub2 -
Zeitschrift Fur Geburtshilfe Und... Apr 2020The number of diseases covered by universal neonatal screening in Germany has risen steadily from 1 (phenylketonuria) in 1968 to 17 (with hearing impairment and...
INTRODUCTION
The number of diseases covered by universal neonatal screening in Germany has risen steadily from 1 (phenylketonuria) in 1968 to 17 (with hearing impairment and congenital hip dysplasia) in 2018. Treatment, however, of disorders diagnosed by screening may harm children, as failed neuroblastoma screening has shown. There are several pilot studies to detect congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection but no consensus as to the treatment of the infants identified.
METHODOLOGY
Systematic search for studies investigating therapy of congenital CMV infection, using PubMed and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).
RESULTS
We found only one controlled trial that randomized infants with symptomatic congenital CMV infection (involving the central nervous system) to treatment (intravenous ganciclovir for 6 weeks) or no treatment. Treatment was associated with significantly less hearing deterioration. A second trial comparing 6 weeks vs. 6 months of treatment with valganciclovir, an oral prodrug of ganciclovir, found no benefit for hearing but modestly improved developmental outcomes associated with 6 months of treatment. In contrast, an open-label registry reported benefits for infants with congenital CMV infection and isolated hearing who received valganciclovir for 12 months, with hearing improvement in 2/3 of cases after a median follow-up of 4½ years.
CONCLUSIONS
Antiviral treatment of neonates with congenital CMV infection and few symptoms including isolated hearing loss remains controversial. A generally accepted therapy, however, is pivotal before introducing universal or targeted screening for congenital CMV infection.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Child; Cytomegalovirus Infections; Ganciclovir; Germany; Hearing Loss, Sensorineural; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Neonatal Screening; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31426118
DOI: 10.1055/a-0966-9915 -
Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular... Oct 2019Reducing mortality is a key target in critical care and perioperative medicine. The authors aimed to identify all nonsurgical interventions (drugs, techniques,...
OBJECTIVE
Reducing mortality is a key target in critical care and perioperative medicine. The authors aimed to identify all nonsurgical interventions (drugs, techniques, strategies) shown by randomized trials to increase mortality in these clinical settings.
DESIGN
A systematic review of the literature followed by a consensus-based voting process.
SETTING
A web-based international consensus conference.
PARTICIPANTS
Two hundred fifty-one physicians from 46 countries.
INTERVENTIONS
The authors performed a systematic literature search and identified all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showing a significant increase in unadjusted landmark mortality among surgical or critically ill patients. The authors reviewed such studies during a meeting by a core group of experts. Studies selected after such review advanced to web-based voting by clinicians in relation to agreement, clinical practice, and willingness to include each intervention in international guidelines.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS
The authors selected 12 RCTs dealing with 12 interventions increasing mortality: diaspirin-crosslinked hemoglobin (92% of agreement among web voters), overfeeding, nitric oxide synthase inhibitor in septic shock, human growth hormone, thyroxin in acute kidney injury, intravenous salbutamol in acute respiratory distress syndrome, plasma-derived protein C concentrate, aprotinin in high-risk cardiac surgery, cysteine prodrug, hypothermia in meningitis, methylprednisolone in traumatic brain injury, and albumin in traumatic brain injury (72% of agreement). Overall, a high consistency (ranging from 80% to 90%) between agreement and clinical practice was observed.
CONCLUSION
The authors identified 12 clinical interventions showing increased mortality supported by randomized controlled trials with nonconflicting evidence, and wide agreement upon clinicians on a global scale.
Topics: Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Critical Care; Critical Illness; Humans; Internet; Mortality; Perioperative Care; Physicians; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 31064730
DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2019.03.022 -
Clinical Pharmacokinetics Oct 2019Enzyme-mediated biotransformation of pharmacological agents is a crucial step in xenobiotic detoxification and drug disposition. Herein, we investigated the metabolism...
Physicochemical Properties, Biotransformation, and Transport Pathways of Established and Newly Approved Medications: A Systematic Review of the Top 200 Most Prescribed Drugs vs. the FDA-Approved Drugs Between 2005 and 2016.
BACKGROUND
Enzyme-mediated biotransformation of pharmacological agents is a crucial step in xenobiotic detoxification and drug disposition. Herein, we investigated the metabolism and physicochemical properties of the top 200 most prescribed drugs (established) as well as drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2005 and 2016 (newly approved).
OBJECTIVE
Our objective was to capture the changing trends in the routes of administration, physicochemical properties, and prodrug medications, as well as the contributions of drug-metabolizing enzymes and transporters to drug clearance.
METHODS
The University of Washington Drug Interaction Database (DIDB) as well as other online resources (e.g., CenterWatch.com, Drugs.com, DrugBank.ca, and PubChem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) was used to collect and stratify the dataset required for exploring the above-mentioned trends.
RESULTS
Analyses revealed that ~ 90% of all drugs in the established and newly approved drug lists were administered systemically (oral or intravenous). Meanwhile, the portion of biologics (molecular weight > 1 kDa) was 15 times greater in the newly approved list than established drugs. Additionally, there was a 4.5-fold increase in the number of compounds with a high calculated partition coefficient (cLogP > 3) and a high total polar surface area (> 75 Å) in the newly approved drug vs. the established category. Further, prodrugs in established or newly approved lists were found to be converted to active compounds via hydrolysis, demethylases, and kinases. The contribution of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4, as the major biotransformation pathway, has increased from 40% in the established drug list to 64% in the newly approved drug list. Moreover, the role of CYP1A2, CYP2C19, and CYP2D6 were decreased as major metabolizing enzymes among the newly approved medications. Among non-CYP major metabolizers, the contribution of alcohol dehydrogenases/aldehyde dehydrogenases (ADH/ALDH) and sulfotransferases decreased in the newly approved drugs compared with the established list. Furthermore, the highest contribution among uptake and efflux transporters was found for Organic Anion Transporting Polypeptide 1B1 (OATP1B1) and P-glycoprotein (P-gp), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
The higher portion of biologics in the newly approved drugs compared with the established list confirmed the growing demands for protein- and antibody-based therapies. Moreover, the larger number of hydrophilic drugs found in the newly approved list suggests that the probability of toxicity is likely to decrease. With regard to CYP-mediated major metabolism, CYP3A5 showed an increased involvement owing to the identification of unique probe substrates to differentiate CYP3As. Furthermore, the contribution of OATP1B1 and P-gp did not show a significant shift in the newly approved drugs as compared to the established list because of their broad substrate specificity.
Topics: Animals; Biological Transport; Biotransformation; Drug Approval; Humans; Prescription Drugs; United States; United States Food and Drug Administration
PubMed: 30972694
DOI: 10.1007/s40262-019-00750-8