-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2016Herpes zoster ophthalmicus affects the eye and vision, and is caused by the reactivation of the varicella zoster virus in the distribution of the first division of the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Herpes zoster ophthalmicus affects the eye and vision, and is caused by the reactivation of the varicella zoster virus in the distribution of the first division of the trigeminal nerve. An aggressive management of acute herpes zoster ophthalmicus with systemic antiviral medication is generally recommended as the standard first-line treatment for herpes zoster ophthalmicus infections. Both acyclovir and its prodrug valacyclovir are medications that are approved for the systemic treatment of herpes zoster. Although it is known that valacyclovir has an improved bioavailability and steadier plasma concentration, it is currently unclear as to whether this leads to better treatment results and less ocular complications.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of valacyclovir versus acyclovir for the systemic antiviral treatment of herpes zoster ophthalmicus in immunocompetent patients.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2016, Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to June 2016), Embase (January 1980 to June 2016), Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S; January 1990 to June 2016), BIOSIS Previews (January 1969 to June 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 13 June 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which systemic valacyclovir was compared to systemic acyclovir medication for treatment of herpes zoster ophthalmicus. There were no language restrictions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials, evaluated the risk of bias in included trials, and extracted and analysed data. We did not conduct a meta-analysis, as only one study was included. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for the selected outcomes using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
One study fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In this multicentre, randomised double-masked study carried out in France, 110 immunocompetent people with herpes zoster ophthalmicus, diagnosed within 72 hours of skin eruption, were treated, with 56 participants allocated to the valacyclovir group and 54 to the acyclovir group. The study was poorly reported and we judged it to be unclear risk of bias for most domains.Persistent ocular lesions after 6 months were observed in 2/56 people in the valacyclovir group compared with 1/54 people in the acyclovir group (risk ratio (RR) 1.93 (95% CI 0.18 to 20.65); very low certainty evidence. Dendritic ulcer appeared in 3/56 patients treated with valacyclovir, while 1/54 suffered in the acyclovir group (RR 2.89; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 26.96); very low certainty evidence), uveitis in 7/56 people in the valacyclovir group compared with 9/54 in the acyclovir group (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.36 to 2.57); very low certainty evidence). Similarly, there was uncertainty as to the comparative effects of these two treatments on post-herpetic pain, and side effects (vomiting, eyelid or facial edema, disseminated zoster). Due to concerns about imprecision (small number of events and large confidence intervals) and study limitations, the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach was rated as low to very low for the use of valacyclovir compared to acyclovir.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review included data from only one study, which had methodological limitations. As such, our results indicated uncertainty of the relative benefits and harms of valacyclovir over acyclovir in herpes zoster ophthalmicus, despite its widespread use for this condition. Further well-designed and adequately powered trials are needed. These trials should include outcomes important to patients, including compliance.
Topics: Acyclovir; Antiviral Agents; Herpes Zoster Ophthalmicus; Humans; Immunocompetence; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Valacyclovir; Valine
PubMed: 27841441
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011503.pub2 -
Drug Metabolism and Disposition: the... Jan 2017As a follow up to previous reviews, the aim of the present analysis was to systematically examine all drug metabolism, transport, pharmacokinetics (PK), and drug-drug... (Review)
Review
As a follow up to previous reviews, the aim of the present analysis was to systematically examine all drug metabolism, transport, pharmacokinetics (PK), and drug-drug interaction (DDI) data available in the 33 new drug applications (NDAs) approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2015, using the University of Washington Drug Interaction Database, and to highlight the significant findings. In vitro, a majority of the new molecular entities (NMEs) were found to be substrates or inhibitors/inducers of at least one drug metabolizing enzyme or transporter. In vivo, 95 clinical DDI studies displayed positive PK interactions, with an area under the curve (AUC) ratio ≥ 1.25 for inhibition or ≤ 0.8 for induction. When NMEs were considered as victim drugs, 21 NMEs had at least one positive clinical DDI, with three NMEs shown to be sensitive substrates of CYP3A (AUC ratio ≥ 5 when coadministered with strong inhibitors): cobimetinib, isavuconazole (the active metabolite of prodrug isavuconazonium sulfate), and ivabradine. As perpetrators, nine NMEs showed positive inhibition and three NMEs showed positive induction, with some of these interactions involving both enzymes and transporters. The most significant changes for inhibition and induction were observed with rolapitant, a moderate inhibitor of CYP2D6 and lumacaftor, a strong inducer of CYP3A. Physiologically based pharmacokinetics simulations and pharmacogenetics studies were used for six and eight NMEs, respectively, to inform dosing recommendations. The effects of hepatic or renal impairment on the drugs' PK were also evaluated to support drug administration in these specific populations.
Topics: Cytochrome P-450 Enzyme System; Databases, Factual; Drug Approval; Drug Interactions; Drugs, Investigational; Humans; Models, Biological; Pharmacogenetics; United States; United States Food and Drug Administration
PubMed: 27821435
DOI: 10.1124/dmd.116.073411 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2016This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 10, 2011. Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is the most commonly prescribed analgesic for the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 10, 2011. Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is the most commonly prescribed analgesic for the treatment of acute pain. It may be administered orally, rectally, or intravenously. The efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) formulations of paracetamol, IV paracetamol, and IV propacetamol (a prodrug that is metabolized to paracetamol), compared with placebo and other analgesics, is unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of IV formulations of paracetamol for the treatment of postoperative pain in both adults and children.
SEARCH METHODS
We ran the search for the previous review in May 2010. For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE (May 2010 to 16 February 2016), EMBASE (May 2010 to 16 February 2016), LILACS (2010 to 2016), a clinical trials registry, and reference lists of reviews for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in any language and we retrieved articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled single dose clinical trials of IV paracetamol or IV propacetamol for acute postoperative pain in adults or children.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data, which included demographic variables, type of surgery, interventions, efficacy, and adverse events. We contacted study authors for additional information. We graded each included study for methodological quality by assessing risk of bias and employed the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 75 studies (36 from the original review and 39 from our updated review) enrolling a total of 7200 participants.Among primary outcomes, 36% of participants receiving IV paracetamol/propacetamol experienced at least 50% pain relief over four hours compared with 16% of those receiving placebo (number needed to treat to benefit (NNT) = 5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.7 to 5.6, high quality evidence). The proportion of participants in IV paracetamol/propacetamol groups experiencing at least 50% pain relief diminished over six hours, as reflected in a higher NNT of 6 (4.6 to 7.1, moderate quality evidence). Mean pain intensity at four hours was similar when comparing IV paracetamol and placebo, but was seven points lower on a 0 to 100 visual analog scale (0 = no pain, 100 = worst pain imaginable, 95% CI -9 to -6, low quality evidence) in those receiving paracetamol at six hours.For secondary outcomes, participants receiving IV paracetamol/propacetamol required 26% less opioid over four hours and 16% less over six hours (moderate quality evidence) than those receiving placebo. However, this did not translate to a clinically meaningful reduction in opioid-induced adverse events.Meta-analysis of efficacy comparisons between IV paracetamol/propacetamol and active comparators (e.g., opioids or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) were either not statistically significant, not clinically significant, or both.Adverse events occurred at similar rates with IV paracetamol or IV propacetamol and placebo. However, pain on infusion occurred more frequently in those receiving IV propacetamol versus placebo (23% versus 1%). Meta-analysis did not demonstrate clinically meaningful differences between IV paracetamol/propacetamol and active comparators for any adverse event.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Since the last version of this review, we have found 39 new studies providing additional information. Most included studies evaluated adults only. We reanalyzed the data but the results did not substantially alter any of our previously published conclusions. This review provides high quality evidence that a single dose of either IV paracetamol or IV propacetamol provides around four hours of effective analgesia for about 36% of patients with acute postoperative pain. Low to very low quality evidence demonstrates that both formulations are associated with few adverse events, although patients receiving IV propacetamol have a higher incidence of pain on infusion than both placebo and IV paracetamol.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Acute Pain; Adult; Analgesics; Child; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 27213715
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007126.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2015The therapeutic role of 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) and azathioprine (AZA) remains controversial due to their perceived relatively slow-acting effect and adverse effects. An... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The therapeutic role of 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) and azathioprine (AZA) remains controversial due to their perceived relatively slow-acting effect and adverse effects. An updated meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy of these agents for the maintenance of remission in quiescent Crohn's disease.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy of AZA and 6-MP for maintenance of remission in quiescent Crohn's disease.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception to June 30, 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials of oral azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine compared to placebo or active therapy involving adult patients (> 18 years) with quiescent Crohn's disease were considered for inclusion. Patients with surgically-induced remission were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). The primary outcomes was maintenance of remission. Secondary outcomes included steroid sparing, adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events. All data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the primary outcome and selected secondary outcomes was assessed using the GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
Eleven studies (881 participants) were included. Comparisons included AZA versus placebo (7 studies, 532 participants), AZA or 6-MP versus mesalazine or sulfasalazine (2 studies, 166 participants), AZA versus budesonide (1 study, 77 participants), AZA and infliximab versus infliximab (1 study, 36 patients), 6-MP versus methotrexate (1 study, 31 patients), and early AZA versus conventional management (1 study, 147 participants). Two studies were rated as low risk of bias. Three studies were rated as high risk of bias for being non-blinded. Six studies were rated as unclear risk of bias. A pooled analysis of six studies (489 participants) showed that AZA (1.0 to 2.5 mg/kg/day) was significantly superior to placebo for maintenance of remission over a 6 to 18 month period. Seventy-three per cent of patients in the AZA group maintained remission compared to 62% of placebo patients (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.34). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome was nine. A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was low due to sparse data (327 events) and unclear risk of bias. A pooled analysis of two studies (166 participants) showed no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients who maintained remission between AZA (1.0 to 2.5 mg/kg/day) or 6-MP (1.0 mg/day) and mesalazine (3 g/day) sulphasalazine (0.5 g/15 kg) therapy. Sixty-nine per cent of patients in the AZA/6-MP group maintained remission compared to 67% of mesalazine/sulphasalazine patients (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.34). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was low due to sparse data (113 events) and high or unclear risk of bias. One small study found AZA (2.0 to 2.5 mg/kg/day) to be superior to budesonide (6 to 9 mg/day) for maintenance of remission at one year. Seventy-six per cent (29/38) of AZA patients maintained remission compared to 46% (18/39) of budesonide patients (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.42). GRADE indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was low due to sparse data (47 events) and high risk of bias. One small study found no difference in maintenance of remission rates at one year between combination therapy with AZA (2.5 mg/kg) and infliximab (5 mg/kg every 8 weeks) compared to infliximab monotherapy. Eighty-one per cent (13/16) of patients in the combination therapy group maintained remission compared to 80% (16/20) of patients in the infliximab group (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.40). GRADE indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was very low due to very sparse data (29 events) and unclear risk of bias. One small study found no difference in maintenance of remission rates at one year between 6-MP (1 mg/day) and methotrexate (10 mg/week). Fifty per cent (8/16) of 6-MP patients maintained remission at one year compared to 53% (8/15) of methotrexate patients (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.85). GRADE indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was very low due to very sparse data (16 events) and high risk of bias. One study (147 participants) failed to show any significant benefit for early azathioprine treatment over a conventional management strategy. In the early azathioprine treatment group 67% (11-85%) of the trimesters were spent in remission compared to 56% (29-73%) in the conventional management group. AZA when compared to placebo had significantly increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.64), withdrawal due to adverse events (3.12, 95% CI 1.59 to 6.09) and serious adverse events (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 4.90). AZA/6-MP also demonstrated a significantly higher risk of serious adverse events when compared to mesalazine or sulphasalazine (RR 9.37, 95% CI 1.84 to 47.7). AZA/6-MP did not differ significantly from other active therapies with respect to adverse event data. Common adverse events included pancreatitis, leukopenia, nausea, allergic reaction and infection.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low quality evidence suggests that AZA is more effective than placebo for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease. Although AZA may be effective for maintenance of remission its use is limited by adverse effects. Low quality evidence suggests that AZA may be superior to budesonide for maintenance of remission but because of small study size and high risk of bias, this result should be interpreted with caution. No conclusions can be drawn from the other active comparator studies because of low and very low quality evidence. Adequately powered trials are needed to determine the comparative efficacy and safety of AZA and 6-MP compared to other active maintenance therapies. Further research is needed to assess the efficacy and safety of the use of AZA with infliximab and other biologics and to determine the optimal management strategy for patients quiescent Crohn's disease.
Topics: Azathioprine; Crohn Disease; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Maintenance Chemotherapy; Mercaptopurine; Prodrugs; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26517527
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000067.pub3 -
Medical Science Monitor : International... Jun 2014Pain on injection is an acknowledged adverse effect (AE) of propofol administration for the induction of general anesthesia. Flurbiprofen axetil has been reported to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pain on injection is an acknowledged adverse effect (AE) of propofol administration for the induction of general anesthesia. Flurbiprofen axetil has been reported to reduce the pain of injection. However, results of published papers on the efficacy of flurbiprofen axetil in managing pain on injection of propofol are inconsistent.
MATERIAL/METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of studies to appraise the efficacy and safety of flurbiprofen axetil for controlling pain induced by propofol injection. The pooled risk ratio (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated employing fixed- or random-effects models, depending upon the heterogeneity of the included trials.
RESULTS
Compared with the placebo group, flurbiprofen axetil allows more patients to have no pain (RR 3.51, 95% CI 2.22-5.55, p=0.000), and decreases the cumulative number of patients with mild, moderate, and severe pain on injecting propofol (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.58-0.86, p=0.000; RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46-0.75, p=0.000; RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.16-0.38, p=0.000, respectively). In the stratified analysis by the doses, flurbiprofen axetil at a dose of over 50 mg was found to be effective in reducing propofol-induced pain on injection; however, there were no significant differences in relieving pain between treatment and placebo groups with flurbiprofen axetil at a dose of 25 mg. In terms of drug safety, there were no adverse effects (AEs) reported between flurbiprofen axetil-based regimens and placebo regimens.
CONCLUSIONS
Flurbiprofen axetil, an injectable prodrug of flurbiprofen, can significantly prevent or relieve the pain induced by propofol injection. More studies are required to assess its adverse effects.
Topics: Clinical Trials as Topic; Flurbiprofen; Humans; Pain; Propofol; Publication Bias; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24935068
DOI: 10.12659/MSM.890102 -
South African Medical Journal =... Mar 2014There is an alarming global increase in the incidence of nosocomial infections with multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria, which are often only susceptible to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There is an alarming global increase in the incidence of nosocomial infections with multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria, which are often only susceptible to colistin. Colistin was developed prior to current methods of establishing dosing using pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationships. Dosing regimens differ in package inserts from different manufacturers and in different guidelines. It is imperative to avoid under-dosing with colistin in order to limit the development of resistance, as it is the last line of defence.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of the literature to develop guidelines for rational dosing of intravenous colistin, with a particular focus on critically ill patients.
RESULTS
Colistin is administered as the inactive pro-drug colistimethate sodium. Colistin demonstrates concentration-dependent bacterial killing, suggesting that higher doses should be administered less frequently to achieve higher peak concentrations. Dose-related nephrotoxicity occurs, making it impossible to safely achieve concentrations that prevent the selection of resistant mutants or the effective eradication of bacteria with higher minimum inhibitory concentrations. Theoretically, combination therapy should be used to reduce the risk of selection of resistant bacteria. In critically ill patients, a loading dose should be given to rapidly achieve therapeutic concentrations, followed by maintenance doses of 4.5 MU 12-hourly. Maintenance dose adjustment is necessary with renal impairment.
CONCLUSION
Easier access to colistin is needed in South Africa, where it is not a registered medicine. Further research is needed to better characterise colistin's pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationships in humans and to establish whether combinations of colistin with other antimicrobials result in improved clinical outcomes or a reduction in selection of resistant bacteria.
Topics: Colistin; Critical Illness; Evidence-Based Medicine; Gram-Negative Bacteria; Humans; Injections, Intravenous
PubMed: 24897820
DOI: No ID Found -
CNS Drugs Jun 2014Here we review the safety and tolerability profile of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX), the first long-acting prodrug stimulant for the treatment of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Here we review the safety and tolerability profile of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX), the first long-acting prodrug stimulant for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
METHODS
A PubMed search was conducted for English-language articles published up to 16 September 2013 using the following search terms: (lisdexamfetamine OR lisdexamphetamine OR SPD489 OR Vyvanse OR Venvanse OR NRP104 NOT review [publication type]).
RESULTS
In short-term, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, phase III trials, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in children, adolescents, and adults receiving LDX were typical for those reported for stimulants in general. Decreased appetite was reported by 25-39 % of patients and insomnia by 11-19 %. The most frequently reported TEAEs in long-term studies were similar to those reported in the short-term trials. Most TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity. Literature relating to four specific safety concerns associated with stimulant medications was evaluated in detail in patients receiving LDX. Gains in weight, height, and body mass index were smaller in children and adolescents receiving LDX than in placebo controls or untreated norms. Insomnia was a frequently reported TEAE in patients with ADHD of all ages receiving LDX, although the available data indicated no overall worsening of sleep quality in adults. Post-marketing survey data suggest that the rate of non-medical use of LDX was lower than that for short-acting stimulants and lower than or equivalent to long-acting stimulant formulations. Small mean increases were seen in blood pressure and pulse rate in patients receiving LDX.
CONCLUSIONS
The safety and tolerability profile of LDX in individuals with ADHD is similar to that of other stimulants.
Topics: Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Dextroamphetamine; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate; Prodrugs; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 24788672
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-014-0166-2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2013Some antiepileptic drugs but not others are useful in clinical practice for the prophylaxis of migraine. This might be explained by the variety of actions of these drugs... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Some antiepileptic drugs but not others are useful in clinical practice for the prophylaxis of migraine. This might be explained by the variety of actions of these drugs in the central nervous system. The present review is part of an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, and previously updated (conclusions not changed) in 2007.
OBJECTIVES
To describe and assess the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of gabapentin/gabapentin enacarbil or pregabalin for preventing migraine attacks in adult patients with episodic migraine.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12), PubMed/MEDLINE (1966 to 15 January 2013), MEDLINE In-Process (current week, 15 January 2013), and EMBASE (1974 to 15 January 2013) and handsearched Headache and Cephalalgia through January 2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies were required to be prospective, controlled trials of gabapentin/gabapentin enacarbil or pregabalin taken regularly to prevent the occurrence of migraine attacks, to improve migraine-related quality of life, or both.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. For headache frequency data, we calculated mean differences (MDs) between gabapentin and comparator (placebo, active control, or gabapentin in a different dose) for individual studies and pooled these across studies. For dichotomous data on responders (patients with ≥ 50% reduction in headache frequency), we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and numbers needed to treat (NNTs). We also summarised data on adverse events from all single dosage studies and calculated risk differences (RDs) and numbers needed to harm (NNHs).
MAIN RESULTS
Five trials on gabapentin and one trial on its prodrug gabapentin enacarbil met the inclusion criteria; no reports on pregabalin were identified. In total, data from 1009 patients were considered. One trial each of gabapentin 900 mg (53 patients), and gabapentin titrated to 1200 mg (63 patients) and 1800 mg (122 patients) failed to show a statistically significant reduction in headache frequency in the active treatment group as compared to the placebo group, whereas one trial of gabapentin titrated to 1800 to 2400 mg (113 patients) demonstrated a small but statistically significant superiority of active treatment for this outcome (MD -0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.55 to -0.05). The pooled results of these four studies (MD -0.44; 95% CI -1.43 to 0.56; 351 patients) do not demonstrate a significant difference between gabapentin and placebo. One trial of gabapentin titrated to 1800 mg (122 patients) failed to demonstrate a significant difference between active treatment and placebo in the proportion of responders (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.45 to 2.11), whereas one trial of gabapentin titrated to 1800 to 2400 mg (113 patients) demonstrated a small but statistically significant superiority of active treatment for this outcome (OR 2.79; 95% CI 1.09 to 7.17). The pooled results of these two studies (OR 1.59; 95% CI 0.57 to 4.46; 235 patients) do not demonstrate a significant difference between gabapentin and placebo. Comparisons from one study (135 patients) suggest that gabapentin 2000 mg is no more effective than gabapentin 1200 mg. One trial of gabapentin enacarbil (523 participants) failed to demonstrate a significant difference versus placebo or between doses for gabapentin enacarbil titrated to between 1200 mg and 3000 mg with regard to proportion of responders; there was also no evidence of a dose-response trend. Adverse events, most notably dizziness and somnolence, were common with gabapentin.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The pooled evidence derived from trials of gabapentin suggests that it is not efficacious for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults. Since adverse events were common among the gabapentin-treated patients, it is advocated that gabapentin should not be used in routine clinical practice. Gabapentin enacarbil is not efficacious for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults. There is no published evidence from controlled trials of pregabalin for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults.
Topics: Adult; Amines; Anticonvulsants; Carbamates; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Gabapentin; Humans; Migraine Disorders; Pregabalin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 23797675
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010609 -
Parasitology Jul 2013Parasitic protozoa comprise diverse aetiological agents responsible for important diseases in humans and animals including sleeping sickness, Chagas disease,... (Review)
Review
Parasitic protozoa comprise diverse aetiological agents responsible for important diseases in humans and animals including sleeping sickness, Chagas disease, leishmaniasis, malaria, toxoplasmosis and others. They are major causes of mortality and morbidity in tropical and subtropical countries, and are also responsible for important economic losses. However, up to now, for most of these parasitic diseases, effective vaccines are lacking and the approved chemotherapeutic compounds present high toxicity, increasing resistance, limited efficacy and require long periods of treatment. Many of these parasitic illnesses predominantly affect low-income populations of developing countries for which new pharmaceutical alternatives are urgently needed. Thus, very low research funding is available. Amidine-containing compounds such as pentamidine are DNA minor groove binders with a broad spectrum of activities against human and veterinary pathogens. Due to their promising microbicidal activity but their rather poor bioavailability and high toxicity, many analogues and derivatives, including pro-drugs, have been synthesized and screened in vitro and in vivo in order to improve their selectivity and pharmacological properties. This review summarizes the knowledge on amidines and analogues with respect to their synthesis, pharmacological profile, mechanistic and biological effects upon a range of intracellular protozoan parasites. The bulk of these data may contribute to the future design and structure optimization of new aromatic dicationic compounds as novel antiparasitic drug candidates.
Topics: Amidines; Animals; Antiprotozoal Agents; Humans; Intracellular Space; Microscopy, Electron, Transmission; Parasites; Pentamidine; Protozoan Infections; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 23561006
DOI: 10.1017/S0031182013000292 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2013Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the cornerstone of asthma maintenance treatment in children. Particularly among parents, there is concern about the safety of ICS as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the cornerstone of asthma maintenance treatment in children. Particularly among parents, there is concern about the safety of ICS as studies in children have shown reduced growth. Small-particle-size ICS targeting the smaller airways have improved lung deposition and effective asthma control might be achieved at lower daily doses.Ciclesonide is a relatively new ICS. This small-particle ICS is a pro-drug that is converted in the airways to an active metabolite and therefore with potentially less local (throat infection) and systemic (reduced growth) side effects. It can be inhaled once daily, thereby possibly improving adherence.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and adverse effects of ciclesonide compared to other ICS in the management of chronic asthma in children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register of trials with pre-defined terms. Additional searches of MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE and Clinical study results.org were undertaken. Searches are up to date to 7 November 2012.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled parallel or cross-over studies were eligible for the review. We included studies comparing ciclesonide with other corticosteroids both at nominally equivalent doses or lower doses of ciclesonide.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Adverse effects information was collected from the trials.
MAIN RESULTS
Six studies were included in this review (3256 children, 4 to 17 years of age). Two studies were published as conference abstracts only. Ciclesonide was compared to budesonide and fluticasone.Ciclesonide compared to budesonide (dose ratio 1:2): asthma symptoms and adverse effect were similar in both groups. Pooled results showed no significant difference in children who experience an exacerbation (risk ratio (RR) 2.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 6.43). Both studies reported that 24-hour urine cortisol levels showed a statistically significant decrease in the budesonide group compared to the ciclesonide group.Ciclesonide compared to fluticasone (dose ratio 1:1): no significant differences were found for the outcome asthma symptoms. Pooled results showed no significant differences in number of patients with exacerbations (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.58 to 3.21) and data from a study that could not be pooled in the meta-analysis reported similar numbers of patients with exacerbations in both groups. None of the studies found a difference in adverse effects. No significant difference was found for 24-hour urine cortisol levels between the groups (mean difference 0.54 nmol/mmol, 95% CI -5.92 to 7.00).Ciclesonide versus fluticasone (dose ratio 1:2) was assessed in one study and showed similar results between the two corticosteroids for asthma symptoms. The number of children with exacerbations was significantly higher in the ciclesonide group (RR 3.57, 95% CI 1.35 to 9.47). No significant differences were found in adverse effects (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.14) and 24-hour urine cortisol levels (mean difference 1.15 nmol/mmol, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.23).The quality of evidence was judged 'low' for the outcomes asthma symptoms and adverse events and 'very low' for the outcome exacerbations for ciclesonide versus budesonide (dose ratio 1:1). The quality of evidence was graded 'moderate' for the outcome asthma symptoms, 'very low' for the outcome exacerbations and 'low' for the outcome adverse events for ciclesonide versus fluticasone (dose ratio 1:1). For ciclesonide versus fluticasone (dose ratio 1:2) the quality was rated 'low' for the outcome asthma symptoms and 'very low' for exacerbations and adverse events (dose ratio 1:2).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
An improvement in asthma symptoms, exacerbations and side effects of ciclesonide versus budesonide and fluticasone could be neither demonstrated nor refuted and the trade-off between benefits and harms of using ciclesonide instead of budesonide or fluticasone is unclear. The resource use or costs of different ICS should therefore also be considered in final decision making. Longer-term superiority trials are needed to identify the usefulness and safety of ciclesonide compared to other ICS. Additionally these studies should be powered for patient relevant outcomes (exacerbations, asthma symptoms, quality of life and side effects). There is a need for studies comparing ciclesonide once daily with other ICS twice daily to assess the advantages of ciclesonide being a pro-drug that can be administered once daily with possibly increased adherence leading to increased control of asthma and fewer side effects.
Topics: Adolescent; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Androstadienes; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Budesonide; Child; Child, Preschool; Fluticasone; Humans; Pregnenediones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 23450613
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010352