-
The British Journal of Dermatology Jan 2024Systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis (AD) are evaluated primarily in placebo-controlled trials with binary efficacy outcomes. In a living systematic review and... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis (AD) are evaluated primarily in placebo-controlled trials with binary efficacy outcomes. In a living systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA), we previously analysed continuous efficacy measures.
OBJECTIVES
To compare binary efficacy outcomes of systemic treatments for AD.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information (LILACS) database, Global Resource for Eczema Trials (GREAT) database and trial registries up to 1 March 2023. We included randomized trials examining ≥ 8 weeks of treatment with systemic immunomodulatory medications for moderate-to-severe AD. We screened titles, abstracts and full texts and abstracted data independently, in duplicate. Outcomes included the proportion of patients achieving at least 50%, 75% and 90% improvements in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI 50, EASI 75 and EASI 90, respectively) and Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) success. We performed random-effects Bayesian NMAs to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) between each intervention for each outcome.
RESULTS
Eighty-three trials with 22 122 participants were included in the systematic review. In analyses limited to trials of 8-16 weeks' duration with predominantly adult populations, abrocitinib 200 mg daily (OR 1.5, 95% CrI 1.1-2.2) and upadacitinib 15 mg daily (OR 1.7, 95% CrI 0.9-3.3) and 30 mg daily (OR 2.5, 95% CrI 1.3-5.0) were associated with higher odds of achieving EASI 50 vs. dupilumab. Abrocitinib 100 mg daily (OR 0.7, 95% CrI 0.5-1.0), baricitinib 2 mg daily (OR 0.4, 95% CrI 0.3-0.5) and 4 mg daily (OR 0.5, 95% CrI 0.3-0.7), and tralokinumab (OR 0.4, 95% CrI 0.3-0.6) were associated with lower odds of achieving EASI 50 vs. dupilumab. Results were similar for EASI 75, EASI 90 and IGA success.
CONCLUSIONS
Supporting results for continuous outcome measures, upadacitinib 30 mg daily and abrocitinib 200 mg daily are the most efficacious with regard to binary efficacy endpoints up to 16 weeks in adults with moderate-to-severe AD, followed by upadacitinib 15 mg daily, dupilumab and abrocitinib 100 mg daily. Dupilumab and both doses of upadacitinib and abrocitinib are more efficacious than baricitinib 4 and 2 mg daily and tralokinumab.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Azetidines; Bayes Theorem; Dermatitis, Atopic; Eczema; Network Meta-Analysis; Purines; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines; Severity of Illness Index; Sulfonamides; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37831594
DOI: 10.1093/bjd/ljad393 -
Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and... Dec 2023Cancer cachexia (CC) is a multifactorial syndrome driven by inflammation, defined by ongoing loss of skeletal muscle mass (with or without loss of fat mass) that cannot... (Review)
Review
Cancer cachexia (CC) is a multifactorial syndrome driven by inflammation, defined by ongoing loss of skeletal muscle mass (with or without loss of fat mass) that cannot be fully reversed by conventional nutritional support. CC leads to progressive functional impairment, with its clinical management complicated and limited therapeutic options available. The objective of this review was to assess the efficacy and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on patient-centred outcomes in patients with CC. In 2013, two systematic reviews concluded that there was insufficient evidence to recommend NSAIDs for clinical management of CC outside of clinical trials. However, clinical trials of multi-component CC interventions have included NSAIDs as an intervention component, so an up-to-date assessment of the evidence for NSAIDs in the treatment of CC is warranted. Four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and CINAHL) and three trial registers (clinicaltrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and ISRCTN) were searched on 16 December 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any NSAID (any dose or duration) with a control arm, in adult patients with CC, reporting measures of body weight, body composition, nutrition impact symptoms, inflammation, physical function or fatigue, were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes (determined with patient involvement) were survival, changes in muscle strength, body composition, body weight and quality of life. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. Five studies were included, which investigated Indomethacin (n = 1), Ibuprofen (n = 1) and Celecoxib (n = 3). Four studies were judged to be at high risk of bias for all outcomes, with one study raising concerns for most outcomes. Considerable clinical and methodological heterogeneity amongst the studies meant that meta-analysis was not appropriate. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether Indomethacin or Ibuprofen is effective or safe for use in patients with CC; RCTs with lower risk of bias are needed. Celecoxib studies indicated it was safe for use in this population at the doses tested (200-400 mg/day) but found contrasting results regarding efficacy, potentially reflecting heterogeneity amongst the studies. There is inadequate evidence to recommend any NSAID for CC. While current clinical trials for CC treatments are shifting towards multi-component interventions, further research to determine the efficacy and safety of NSAIDs alone is necessary if they are to be included in such multi-component interventions. Furthermore, the lack of data on patient-determined primary outcomes in this review highlights the need for patient involvement in clinical trials for CC.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Ibuprofen; Celecoxib; Cachexia; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Indomethacin; Inflammation; Neoplasms
PubMed: 37750475
DOI: 10.1002/jcsm.13327 -
Clinical Rheumatology Feb 2024Baricitinib is a selective Janus kinase inhibitor that has recently been approved for treating certain autoimmune disorders. This meta-analysis pooled the conflicting... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Baricitinib is a selective Janus kinase inhibitor that has recently been approved for treating certain autoimmune disorders. This meta-analysis pooled the conflicting results from all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). We systemically searched four electronic databases. RCTs comparing baricitinib versus placebo were included. Our outcomes were pooled as the risk ratio (RR) in the random effects model. Our primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved a SLE Responder Index-4 (SRI-4) response. A total of three RCTs, comprising 1849 patients, were included. Baricitinib 4 mg was associated with a significantly higher proportion of patients who attained SRI-4 response at week 24 (RR = 1.19, 95% CI [1.05, 1.35], P < 0.01). However, this did not reach statistical significance with baricitinib 4 mg at week 52 and baricitinib 2 mg at both week 24 and week 52 (RR = 1.13, 95% CI [0.96, 1.34], P = 0.15; RR = 1.09, 95% CI [0.96, 1.24], P = 0.20; RR = 1.05, 95% CI [0.92, 1.19], P = 0.50, respectively). The risk for serious infections was higher in the baricitinib 4 mg group (RR = 2.23, 95% CI [1.13, 4.37], P = 0.02). Baricitinib 2 mg did not show any clinical benefit. In contrast, baricitinib 4 mg might have the potential to reduce SLE disease activity; however, further research is required to evaluate its long-term efficacy. Until higher-quality evidence is developed, the benefits and risks of baricitinib should be considered before initiating its therapy. Key Points • Baricitinib is a selective Janus kinase inhibitor that has recently been approved for treating certain autoimmune disorders; however, its efficacy in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is still inconclusive. • In our meta-analysis, baricitinib 2 mg did not show any clinical benefit. In contrast, baricitinib 4 mg significantly reduced SLE activity in terms of SRI-4 response at week 24. However, this did not reach statistical significance at week 52. • Further studies are required to investigate the long-term efficacy of baricitinib 4 mg in patients with SLE.
Topics: Humans; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic; Azetidines; Treatment Outcome; Purines; Pyrazoles; Sulfonamides
PubMed: 37581759
DOI: 10.1007/s10067-023-06731-4 -
BMC Gastroenterology Aug 2023The effectiveness of selective COX-2 inhibitors in preventing colorectal cancer recurrence has been demonstrated, however it is unknown how safe and successful they will... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The effectiveness of selective COX-2 inhibitors in preventing colorectal cancer recurrence has been demonstrated, however it is unknown how safe and successful they will be over the long term. As a result, we looked at the efficacy, safety, and consequences of adding COX-2 inhibitors to the treatment plan afterward.
METHODS
In patients with advanced colorectal cancer, we compared the efficacy of celecoxib at two different doses (200 mg twice day and 400 mg twice daily) with placebo. To evaluate the impacts of post-treatment, several datasets from inception to June 2022 were searched. Response rate, illness control rate, and 3-year survival were the main results. And evaluated several safety outcomes, particularly those that were susceptible to adverse events.
RESULTS
The study comprised a total of 9 randomized controlled trials (3206 participants). Celecoxib and rofecoxib doidn't significantly improved the 1-3 year remission rate (OR, 1.57 [95% CI: 0.95-2.57]) and disease control rate (OR, 1.08 [95% CI: 0.99-1.17]). Subgroup analysis of different doses showed that 400 mg of celecoxib significantly improved the response rate (OR, 2.82 [95%CI: 1.20-6.61]). 200 mg celecoxib was not significant (OR, 1.28 [95% CI: 0.66-2.49]). Rofecoxib also did not fully improve disease response rates. Celecoxib at any dose improved 3-year survival (OR, 1.21 [95% CI: 1.02-1.45]). It is important to note that COX-2 inhibitors did not significantly enhance the likelihood of adverse events including gastrointestinal or cardiovascular side effects at any dose.
CONCLUSIONS
For patients with advanced colorectal cancer, a reasonable chemoprevention regimen can include celecoxib 400 mg twice daily.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Celecoxib; Colorectal Neoplasms; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sulfones
PubMed: 37580670
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-023-02918-w -
The Journal of Pain Nov 2023Transdermal buprenorphine (TBUP) may have some advantages for the management of acute postoperative pain. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Transdermal buprenorphine (TBUP) may have some advantages for the management of acute postoperative pain. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy and safety of TBUP compared to other analgesics or placebo for acute postoperative pain. A systematic search was conducted using Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) until December 26, 2022. The search included randomized controlled trials comparing TBUP versus other analgesics or placebo for acute postoperative pain. A certainty assessment was conducted using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method. The protocol for this review was registered on Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022318601). In total, 15 studies involving 1,205 participants were included that compared TBUP versus fentanyl (n = 2), celecoxib (n = 3), placebo (n = 2), tramadol (n = 5), diclofenac (n = 3), parecoxib (n = 1), and flurbiprofen (n = 1). Meta-analyses were conducted for 3 comparators that involved 2 studies each. There was no significant difference in pain between TBUP 10 mcg/h versus fentanyl 25 mcg/h (standardized mean difference [SMD] -.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] -.86 to .81, P = .95, I = 85%). TBUP 10 mcg/h was associated with less pain compared to celecoxib 200 mg twice daily (SMD -.32, 95% CI -.58 to -.05, P = .02, I = 0%) and placebo (SMD -2.29, 95% CI -4.32 to -.27, P = .03, I = 94%). The GRADE assessment showed a very low certainty of evidence for all comparisons. There is insufficient evidence that TBUP improves pain control compared to other analgesics for acute postoperative pain. PERSPECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the use of TBUP to other analgesics for postoperative pain. The results showed that there is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of TBUP in this setting. The findings will help clinicians select the most appropriate opioid regimens for postoperative pain.
Topics: Humans; Celecoxib; Analgesics, Opioid; Pain, Postoperative; Fentanyl; Buprenorphine
PubMed: 37442403
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2023.07.001 -
Journal of Drugs in Dermatology : JDD Jul 2023This article describes the clinical trial, safety, and efficacy of ruxolitinib 1.5% cream or repigmentation in patients with vitiligo.
BACKGROUND
This article describes the clinical trial, safety, and efficacy of ruxolitinib 1.5% cream or repigmentation in patients with vitiligo.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic review was done using ruxolitinib or Opzelura in MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE.
CLINICALTRIALS
gov was used to identify ongoing or unpublished studies.
STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION
Studies included were written in English and relevant to pharmacology, clinical trials, safety, and efficacy.
DATA SYNTHESIS
In two 52-week phase 3 trials, 52.0% of subjects had at least 75% improvement in their Facial Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (F-VASI).
RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE
Ruxolitinib is a topical Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor newly approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for repigmentation in patients with vitiligo.
CONCLUSION
Topical ruxolitinib is the first medication approved for repigmentation in patients with vitiligo. It is a safe and effective treatment; however, cost may be a barrier to some patients when prescribing this medication. Trials to compare the efficacy and side effect profile of topical ruxolitinib with other topical treatments are still needed. Grossmann MC, Haidari W, Feldman SR. A Review on the use of topical ruxolitinib for the treatment of vitiligo. J Drugs Dermatol. 2023;22(7):664-667. doi:10.36849/JDD.7268.
Topics: Humans; Vitiligo; Pyrimidines; Nitriles; Pyrazoles; Treatment Outcome; Janus Kinase Inhibitors
PubMed: 37410047
DOI: 10.36849/JDD.7268 -
Arquivos de Neuro-psiquiatria Jun 2023Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a global health problem, and gabapentin and pregabalin are often used in the treatment of patients without associated radiculopathy or...
BACKGROUND
Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a global health problem, and gabapentin and pregabalin are often used in the treatment of patients without associated radiculopathy or neuropathy. Therefore, determining their efficacy and safety is of enormous value.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the efficacy and safety of using gabapentin and pregabalin for CLBP without radiculopathy or neuropathy.
METHODS
We performed a search on the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and Web of Science data bases for clinical trials, cohorts, and case-control studies that evaluated patients with CLBP without radiculopathy or neuropathy for at least eight weeks. The data were extracted and inserted into a previously-prepared Microsoft Excel spreadsheet; the outcomes were evaluated using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and the quality of evidence, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.
RESULTS
Of the 2,230 articles identified, only 5 were included, totaling 242 participants. In them, pregabalin was slightly less efficacious than amitriptyline, the combination of tramadol/acetaminophen, and celecoxib, and pregabalin added to celecoxib showed no benefit when compared to celecoxib alone (very low evidence for all). On the other hand, although one study with gabapentin did not support its use in a general sample of patients with low back pain, another found a reduction in the pain scale and improved mobility (moderate evidence). No serious adverse events were observed in any of the studies.
CONCLUSION
Quality information to support the use of pregabalin or gabapentin in the treatment of CLBP without radiculopathy or neuropathy is lacking, although results may suggest gabapentin as a viable option. More data is needed to fill this current gap in knowledge.
Topics: Humans; Radiculopathy; Gabapentin; Pregabalin; Low Back Pain; Celecoxib
PubMed: 37379868
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1764414 -
BMC Neurology Jun 2023Many drugs are prescribed in relieving acute migraine attacks, we aim to compare metoclopramide with other antimigraine drugs. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The efficacy and safety of metoclopramide in relieving acute migraine attacks compared with other anti-migraine drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Many drugs are prescribed in relieving acute migraine attacks, we aim to compare metoclopramide with other antimigraine drugs.
METHODS
We searched online databases like PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science till June 2022 for RCTs that compared metoclopramide alone with placebo or active drugs. The main outcomes were the mean change in headache score and complete headache relief. The secondary outcomes were the rescue medications need, side effects, nausea and recurrence rate. We qualitatively reviewed the outcomes. Then, we performed the network meta-analyses (NMAs) when it was possible. which were done by the Frequentist method using the MetaInsight online software.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies were included with a total of 1934 patients: 826 received metoclopramide, 302 received placebo, and 806 received other active drugs. Metoclopramide was effective in reducing headache outcomes even for 24 h. The intravenous route was the most chosen route in the included studies and showed significant positive results regarding headache outcomes; however, the best route whether intramuscular, intravenous, or suppository was not compared in the previous studies. Also, both 10 and 20 mg doses of metoclopramide were effective in improving headache outcomes; however, there was no direct comparison between both doses and the 10 mg dose was the most frequently used dosage. In NMA of headache change after 30 min or 1 h, metoclopramide effect came after granisetron, ketorolac, chlorpromazine, and Dexketoprofen trometamol. Only granisetron's effect was significantly higher than metoclopramide's effect which was only significantly higher than placebo and sumatriptan. In headache-free symptoms, only prochlorperazine was non-significantly higher than metoclopramide which was higher than other medications and showed significantly higher effects only with placebo. In rescue medication, metoclopramide's effect was only non-significantly lower than prochlorperazine and chlorpromazine while its effect was higher than other drugs and showed higher significant effects only than placebo and valproate. In the recurrence rate, studies showed no significant difference between metoclopramide and other drugs. Metoclopramide significantly decreased nausea more than the placebo. Regarding side effects, metoclopramide showed a lower incidence of mild side effects than pethidine and chlorpromazine and showed a higher incidence of mild side effects than placebo, dexamethasone, and ketorolac. The reported extrapyramidal symptoms with metoclopramide were dystonia or akathisia.
CONCLUSION
A dose of 10 mg IV Metoclopramide was effective in relieving migraine attacks with minimal side effects. Compared to other active drugs, it only showed a lower significant effect compared with granisetron regarding headache change while it showed significantly higher effects only with placebo in both rescue medication needs and headache-free symptoms and valproate in only rescue medication need. Also, it significantly decreased headache scores more than placebo and sumatriptan. However, more studies are needed to support our results.
Topics: Humans; Metoclopramide; Sumatriptan; Network Meta-Analysis; Prochlorperazine; Chlorpromazine; Granisetron; Valproic Acid; Ketorolac; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Migraine Disorders; Nausea; Headache
PubMed: 37291500
DOI: 10.1186/s12883-023-03259-7 -
Neurological Sciences : Official... Oct 2023The study aims to increase understanding of edaravone's efficacy and safety as an amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) treatment and provide significant insights... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
The study aims to increase understanding of edaravone's efficacy and safety as an amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) treatment and provide significant insights regarding this field's future research.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive search of the Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus databases for randomized controlled trials and observational studies up until September 2022. We evaluated the studies' quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the National Institutes of Health tool.
RESULTS
We included 11 studies with 2845 ALS patients. We found that edaravone improved the survival rate at 18, 24, and 30 months (risk ratio (RR) = 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.02 to 1.24], P = 0.02), (RR = 1.22, 95% CI [1.06 to 1.41], P = 0.007), and (RR = 1.17, 95% CI [1.01 to 1.34], P = 0.03), respectively. However, the administration of edaravone did not result in any significant difference in adverse effects or efficacy outcomes between the two groups, as indicated by a P value greater than 0.05.
CONCLUSION
Edaravone improves survival rates of ALS patients at 18, 24, and 30 months with no adverse effects. However, edaravone does not affect functional outcomes. In order to ensure the validity of our findings and assess the results in accordance with the disease stage, it is essential to carry out additional prospective, rigorous, and high-quality clinical trials. The current study offers preliminary indications regarding the effectiveness and safety of edaravone. However, further comprehensive research is required to establish the generalizability and sustainability of the findings.
Topics: United States; Humans; Edaravone; Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 37249667
DOI: 10.1007/s10072-023-06869-8 -
Expert Review of Endocrinology &... 2023To identify a preferred and cost-effective drug among Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4Is) for Indian patients with T2DM.
OBJECTIVE
To identify a preferred and cost-effective drug among Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4Is) for Indian patients with T2DM.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature search using standard databases for relevant literature. Original studies comparing the efficacy and/or safety of different DPP4Is were included. Two authors independently performed the literature search, screening, and collected relevant data from the selected studies. The costs of all brands of individual DPP4Is were noted and compared for lowest, highest, and average cost. Finally, we summarized the information with respect to Efficacy, safety, suitability, and cost to find the most cost-effective DPP4I.
RESULTS
We found 13 eligible studies containing data on 15,720 subjects. These studies showed similar efficacy (or better) and safety with teneligliptin as compared to other DPP4Is. Teneligliptin also showed additional benefits other than the glycemic control. The average cost per tablet of teneligliptin 20 mg was markedly lower as compared to sitagliptin, vildagliptin, and other commonly used DPP4Is. Teneligliptin also outscored other commonly used DPP4Is in India in suitability and seems to have better patient compliance.
CONCLUSIONS
Teneligliptin 20 mg could be considered as the preferred and most cost-effective agent among commonly used DPP4Is for the effective management of patients with T2DM in India.
Topics: Humans; Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors; Hypoglycemic Agents; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Blood Glucose; Glycated Hemoglobin; Dipeptidyl-Peptidases and Tripeptidyl-Peptidases
PubMed: 37232153
DOI: 10.1080/17446651.2023.2216279