-
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2024In recent years, diverse initiatives have been carried out to control the COVID-19 pandemic, ranging from measures restricting social activities to analyzing drugs and...
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, diverse initiatives have been carried out to control the COVID-19 pandemic, ranging from measures restricting social activities to analyzing drugs and vaccines. Studies on herbal medicines are also increasingly conducted in various countries as an adjuvant therapy or supplement. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to investigate the efficacy of herbal medicines analyzed from various countries through clinical trials with the randomized controlled trial method. The outcomes of Length of Stay (LOS), Negative Conversion Time (NCT), and Negative Conversion Rate (NCR) were the main focus.
METHODS
An extensive review of literature spanning from 2019 to 2023 was carried out using well-known databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane. The search included relevant keywords such as "randomized controlled trial," "COVID-19," and "herbal medicine."
RESULTS
A total of 8 articles were part of the inclusion criteria with outcomes of LOS, NCT, and NCR. In terms of LOS outcomes, all types of herbal medicines showed significant results, such as Persian Medicine Herbal (PM Herbal), Persian Barley Water (PBW), Jingyin Granules (JY granules), Reduning Injection, and (Amla). However, only JY granules showed significant results in NCR outcome, while JY granules and Reduning Injection showed significant results in reducing NCT.
CONCLUSION
These findings enrich our understanding of the potential benefits of herbal medicines in influencing LOS, NCR and NCT parameters in COVID-19 patients. Herbal medicines worked to treat COVID-19 through antiviral, anti-inflammatory, and immunomodulatory mechanisms.
PubMed: 38873430
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1383359 -
Medicine Feb 2024Adjuvants may enhance the efficacy of vaccines. however, the efficacy of adjuvant-associated COVID-19 vaccines (ACVs) remains unclear since the emergence of the COVID-19... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Adjuvants may enhance the efficacy of vaccines. however, the efficacy of adjuvant-associated COVID-19 vaccines (ACVs) remains unclear since the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to address this gap by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of ACVs against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 CoV (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern (VOC).
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the vaccine efficacy (VE) of ACVs against VOC (alpha, beta, gamma, delta, or Omicron), up to May 27, 2023. The DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model was used to assess VE with 95% confidence intervals (CI) through meta-analysis. Cochrane Risk of Bias tools were used to assess the risk of bias in RCTs.
RESULTS
Eight RCTs with 113,202 participants were included in the analysis, which incorporated 4 ACVs [Matrix-M (NVX-CoV2373), Alum (BBV152), CpG-1018/Alum (SCB-2019), and AS03 (CoVLP]). The pooled efficacy of full vaccination with ACVs against VOC was 88.0% (95% CI: 83.0-91.5). Full vaccination was effective against Alpha, Beta, Delta, and Gamma variants, with VE values of 93.66% (95% CI: 86.5-100.74), 64.70% (95% CI: 41.87-87.54), 75.95% (95% CI: 67.9-83.99), and 91.26% (95% CI: 84.35-98.17), respectively. Currently, there is a lack of RCT evidence regarding the efficacy of ACVs against the Omicron variant.
CONCLUSION
In this meta-analysis, it should be that full vaccination with ACVs has high efficacy against Alpha or Gamma variants and moderate efficacy against Beta and Delta variants. Notably, with the exception of the aluminum-adjuvanted vaccine, the other ACVs had moderate to high efficacy against the SARS-CoV-2 variant. This raises concerns about the effectiveness of ACVs booster vaccinations against Omicron.
Topics: Humans; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Adjuvants, Immunologic; Adjuvants, Pharmaceutic; COVID-19 Vaccines; Alum Compounds
PubMed: 38363919
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000035201 -
Natural Product Research Jan 2024Intraocular pressure (IOP) positively correlates with both normal and high-tension glaucoma. To date, IOP targeting remains the validated pharmacological approach in... (Review)
Review
Evaluation of the nutraceutical Palmitoylethanolamide in reducing intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Intraocular pressure (IOP) positively correlates with both normal and high-tension glaucoma. To date, IOP targeting remains the validated pharmacological approach in counteracting glaucoma progression as well as in halting vision loss. Among the different adjuvant compounds, evidence highlighted the potential effectiveness of Palmitoylethanolamide (PEA), an endogenous fatty acid amide. Thus, a systematic review of the literature was conducted, thoroughly evaluating PEA treatment regimen in decreasing IOP in patients with eye disorders. We checked for articles across the scientific databases Pubmed (MEDLINE), Embase (OVID), and Web of Science from the inception to 30 August 2023, and a total of 828 articles were recovered. Six of these studies (199 patients) were included in the systematic review after the study selection process, and three studies for meta-analysia. Overall, PEA showed significant efficacy in reducing IOP in patients, this encourages its clinical use in glaucoma as well as across different forms of eye disorders.
PubMed: 38269580
DOI: 10.1080/14786419.2024.2306916 -
Renal Failure Dec 2024To evaluate the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of fermented mycelium (FOSM) products for preventing contrast-associated acute kidney injury (CA-AKI).
BACKGROUND
To evaluate the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of fermented mycelium (FOSM) products for preventing contrast-associated acute kidney injury (CA-AKI).
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials were searched from four Chinese and four English electronic databases and three clinical trial registries up to July 2023. Methodological quality was assessed by using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 2.0. Risk difference (RD) or risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
Fourteen trials testing three types of FOSM products (Bailing, Zhiling, and Jinshuibao capsules) involving 1271 participants injected contrast agents were included. For the risk of bias, all trials were rated as some concerns. Compared with routine preventive procedure (RPP) (saline hydration and alprostadil), FOSM products plus RPP showed beneficial effects in reducing the incidence of CA-AKI (14.62% and 5.35%, respectively; RD -0.06, 95% CI -0.09 to -0.03). Subgroup analysis showed that Bailing/Jinshuibao plus RPP demonstrated lower incidence of CA-AKI compared to RPP. However, there was no statistically significant difference between Zhiling with RPP and RPP in the incidence of CA-AKI. Additionally, only when FOSM products were taken before injection of the contrast, it was superior to RPP in reducing the incidence of CA-AKI. There was no statistical difference in adverse events between these two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Low certainty evidence suggests that preventive oral use of FOSM products as an adjuvant agent was safe and might decrease the incidence of CA-AKI. However, high-quality placebo-controlled trials are needed to confirm its benefit.
Topics: Humans; Acute Kidney Injury; Adjuvants, Pharmaceutic; Cordyceps; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Biological Products
PubMed: 38189088
DOI: 10.1080/0886022X.2023.2300302 -
Heliyon Dec 2023The benefits and risks of adjuvant-associated COVID-19 vaccines (ACVs) are unclear. The study aimed to assess the immunogenicity and safety of ACVs compared with... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The benefits and risks of adjuvant-associated COVID-19 vaccines (ACVs) are unclear. The study aimed to assess the immunogenicity and safety of ACVs compared with controls (placebo or the same vaccine without adjuvants [NACVs]).
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials sourced from PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were systematically reviewed. Evaluators extracted information independently. The evidence quality was assessed using random-effects models. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.
RESULTS
Of the 33 studies, 27 analyzed immunogenicity (n = 9069, ACVs group; n = 3757, control), and 26 analyzed safety (n = 58669, ACVs groups; n = 30733 control). Compared with controls, full vaccination with ACVs produced significant immune responses (relative risk [RR] of seroneutralization reaction, 12.3; 95 % confidence interval [95 % CI], 6.92-21.89; standardized mean deviation of geometric mean titer 3.96, 95 % CI, 3.35-4.58). Additionally, ACVs produced significant immunoreactivity compared with NACVs only ( < 0.05). Furthermore, full vaccination with ACVs significantly increased the risk of local and systemic adverse reactions (AEs) compared with controls. However, vaccination with ACVs did not significantly increase the risk of systemic and localized AEs compared with vaccination with NACVs only (P > 0.05). It was observed that ACVs had a lower risk of all-cause mortality than controls (RR, 0.51; 95 % CI 0.30-0.87). It was further found that ACVs produced nAb response against all sublines of the Omicron variant, but the antibody titers were lower than those for the SARS-CoV-2 original strain.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this meta-analysis demonstrate that ACVs may have a superior effect and an acceptable safety in preventing COVID-19. Although these results suggest the potential of ACVs, further studies are required.
PubMed: 38125524
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22858 -
BMC Pharmacology & Toxicology Nov 2023Aluminum phosphide toxicity is a serious problem in many countries. Unfortunately, there is no specific antidote. N-acetylcysteine has been used in some studies as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Aluminum phosphide toxicity is a serious problem in many countries. Unfortunately, there is no specific antidote. N-acetylcysteine has been used in some studies as adjuvant therapy depending on to its antioxidant properties. We hypothesized that IV N-acetylcysteine is effective in reducing mortality rate compared to supportive treatment alone.
METHODS
We searched in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. We only included randomized controlled trials that assessed the efficacy of IV N-acetylcysteine and supportive treatment versus supportive treatment alone in acute aluminum phosphide poisoning. Four investigators independently screened the studies' results and designed the data extraction sheet. The primary and secondary outcomes were mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation rates. Random effects estimators with weights were used to result in the pooled risk ratios.
RESULTS
We included four randomized controlled trials with 177 patients. 91 patients were distributed in N-acetylcysteine group and 86 patients in the control group. Mortality rates in N-acetylcysteine group and in the control group were 43.95% 66.27% respectively. There was a statistically significant reduction in mortality rate after leave out test (pooled risk ratio, 0.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.77). Regarding the need for mechanical ventilation, it was measured only in three RCTs. It was assessed in 67 patients in N-acetylcysteine group and 60 patients in the control group. 24 patients were ventilated in N-acetylcysteine group (35.8%) and 29 patients in the control group (48.3%). But it was statistically nonsignificant (pooled risk ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-1.04).
CONCLUSION
Our meta-analysis revealed that IV N-acetylcysteine may be effective in reducing mortality of severe aluminum phosphide poisoning cases.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Registration number in Prospero CRD42022375344 on 25 NOVEMBER 2022, retrospectively registered.
Topics: Humans; Acetylcysteine; Antioxidants; Aluminum Compounds; Phosphines
PubMed: 37924139
DOI: 10.1186/s40360-023-00699-2 -
Breast Care (Basel, Switzerland) Aug 2023The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHas) on pregnancy outcomes, premature ovarian failure (POF), menstrual...
Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Agonists during Gonadal Chemotherapy for the Effect on Pregnancy Outcome and Ovarian Function in Premenopausal Patients with Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHas) on pregnancy outcomes, premature ovarian failure (POF), menstrual recovery, disease-free survival (DFS), and adverse events in premenopausal breast cancer patients during gonadal chemotherapy.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. The trials were eligible if they included premenopausal breast cancer patients treated with chemotherapy alone or with concurrent GnRHa and reported ovarian function recovery data. Heterogeneity for the eligible data was assessed, and a pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. A meta-analysis was conducted using a fixed-effect model.
RESULTS
Fifteen randomized controlled trials were included in this analysis. The results indicated that GnRHa combined with chemotherapy significantly increased pregnancy rates compared with chemotherapy alone (RR = 1.76; 95% CI: 1.16-2.67) and decreased rates of POF (RR = 0.42; 95% CI: 0.35-0.51). For secondary endpoints, the GnRHa group improved menstrual recovery rates (RR = 1.20; 95% CI: 1.11-1.30) and decreased the rate of amenorrhea 1-2 years after chemotherapy (RR = 0.50; 95% CI: 0.40-0.63). Furthermore, the 5-year DFS and overall survival (OS) rates were significantly improved in the GnRHa group.
CONCLUSION
For premenopausal breast cancer patients receiving gonadal toxic chemotherapy, adjuvant chemotherapy with GnRHa can better protect the ovarian function of patients, reduce the rate of POF and amenorrhea, and improve the pregnancy rate, menstrual recovery rate, DFS rate, and OS rate of patients.
PubMed: 37900550
DOI: 10.1159/000528028 -
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Feb 2024Extension of adjuvant endocrine therapy beyond five years confers only modest survival benefit in breast cancer patients and carries risk of toxicities. This systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Extension of adjuvant endocrine therapy beyond five years confers only modest survival benefit in breast cancer patients and carries risk of toxicities. This systematic review investigates the role of biomarker tests in predicting the clinical response to an extension of endocrine therapy.
METHODS
We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Global Index Medicus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials using an iterative approach to identify full-text articles related to breast cancer, endocrine therapy, and biomarkers.
RESULTS
Of the 1,217 unique reports identified, five studies were deemed eligible. Four investigated the Breast Cancer Index (BCI) assay in three distinct study populations. These studies consistently showed that BCI score was predictive of response to extended endocrine therapy among 1,946 combined patients, who were predominately non-Hispanic white and postmenopausal.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence in the setting of predictive tests for extended endocrine therapy is sparse. Most relevant studies investigated the use of BCI, but these study populations were largely restricted to a single age, race, and ethnicity group. Future studies should evaluate a variety of biomarkers in diverse populations. Without sufficient evidence, physicians and patients face a difficult decision in balancing the benefits and risks of endocrine therapy extension.
Topics: Humans; Female; Breast Neoplasms; Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Biomarkers
PubMed: 37878151
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-023-07149-x -
International Journal of Urology :... Jan 2024Adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies have radically altered the treatment landscape for renal cell carcinoma and urothelial carcinoma. However, studies have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies have radically altered the treatment landscape for renal cell carcinoma and urothelial carcinoma. However, studies have reported negative data regarding adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies. Thus, this study aimed to assess the role of adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for both renal cell carcinoma and urothelial carcinoma. A systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Multiple databases were searched for articles published as of February 2023. Studies were deemed eligible if they evaluated disease-free survival in patients with renal cell carcinoma and urothelial carcinoma receiving adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Five studies met the inclusion criteria. In a network meta-analysis, pembrolizumab was shown to be the most effective regimen for patients with renal cell carcinoma, whereas nivolumab was found to be the most effective regimen for patients with urothelial carcinoma. Additionally, these results were consistently observed in a sub-analysis of the T stage. The present analysis provides findings that support the usefulness of adjuvant nivolumab therapy in urothelial carcinoma and adjuvant pembrolizumab therapy in renal cell carcinoma, in agreement with the currently available guidelines. However, the caveat is that the randomized controlled trials included in this analysis differed in important respects despite being similar in study design. Therefore, with these differences in mind, care needs to be taken when selecting patients for these immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies to maximize their benefits.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Carcinoma, Transitional Cell; Nivolumab; Network Meta-Analysis; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Urinary Bladder Neoplasms; Immunotherapy; Adjuvants, Immunologic; Kidney Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37840031
DOI: 10.1111/iju.15319 -
Anticancer Research Oct 2023Using statins as antitumor agents is an approach to cancer therapy that has been explored extensively in specific cancer types. Reframing the query to how a statin... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND/AIM
Using statins as antitumor agents is an approach to cancer therapy that has been explored extensively in specific cancer types. Reframing the query to how a statin interacts with the treatment regimen instead might provide new insight. Given that cell-cycle regulation influences tumorigenesis, it is possible that the cell-cycle phase which a given chemotherapy acts on influences the synergistic effects with adjuvant statin use. In this review, we outline the effect of statins in combination with chemotherapeutic drugs in in vivo animal model studies based on the class of chemotherapy and its relation to the cell cycle.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This systematic review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 with 23 articles deemed eligible to be included.
RESULTS
Our review suggests that statins influence the success of chemotherapy treatments. Furthermore, enhanced efficacy was demonstrated with chemotherapeutic drugs that act at every phase of the cell cycle.
CONCLUSION
This type of compilation departs from the norm of describing statin influence on named cancer subtypes and instead catalogs how statins interact with categorical chemotherapy agents which might be beneficial for broader therapeutic decision-making across cancer subtypes, possibly contributing to pharmaceutical development, and thereby helping to maximize patient outcomes.
Topics: Animals; Mice; Antineoplastic Agents; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors
PubMed: 37772570
DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.16621