-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2022Good patient adherence to antiretroviral (ART) medication determines effective HIV viral suppression, and thus reduces the risk of progression and transmission of HIV.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Good patient adherence to antiretroviral (ART) medication determines effective HIV viral suppression, and thus reduces the risk of progression and transmission of HIV. With accurate methods to monitor treatment adherence, we could use simple triage to target adherence support interventions that could help in the community or at health centres in resource-limited settings.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the accuracy of simple measures of ART adherence (including patient self-report, tablet counts, pharmacy records, electronic monitoring, or composite methods) for detecting non-suppressed viral load in people living with HIV and receiving ART treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Information Specialists searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, African-Wide information, and Web of Science up to 22 April 2021. They also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing studies. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included studies of all designs that evaluated a simple measure of adherence (index test) such as self-report, tablet counts, pharmacy records or secondary database analysis, or both, electronic monitoring or composite measures of any of those tests, in people living with HIV and receiving ART treatment. We used a viral load assay with a limit of detection ranging from 10 copies/mL to 400 copies/mL as the reference standard. We created 2 × 2 tables to calculate sensitivity and specificity.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using QUADAS-2 independently and in duplicate. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE method. The results of estimated sensitivity and specificity were presented using paired forest plots and tabulated summaries. We encountered a high level of variation among studies which precluded a meaningful meta-analysis or comparison of adherence measures. We explored heterogeneity using pre-defined subgroup analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 51 studies involving children and adults with HIV, mostly living in low- and middle-income settings, conducted between 2003 and 2021. Several studies assessed more than one index test, and the most common measure of adherence to ART was self-report. - Self-report questionnaires (25 studies, 9211 participants; very low-certainty): sensitivity ranged from 10% to 85% and specificity ranged from 10% to 99%. - Self-report using a visual analogue scale (VAS) (11 studies, 4235 participants; very low-certainty): sensitivity ranged from 0% to 58% and specificity ranged from 55% to 100%. - Tablet counts (12 studies, 3466 participants; very low-certainty): sensitivity ranged from 0% to 100% and specificity ranged from 5% to 99%. - Electronic monitoring devices (3 studies, 186 participants; very low-certainty): sensitivity ranged from 60% to 88% and the specificity ranged from 27% to 67%. - Pharmacy records or secondary databases (6 studies, 2254 participants; very low-certainty): sensitivity ranged from 17% to 88% and the specificity ranged from 9% to 95%. - Composite measures (9 studies, 1513 participants; very low-certainty): sensitivity ranged from 10% to 100% and specificity ranged from 49% to 100%. Across all included studies, the ability of adherence measures to detect viral non-suppression showed a large variation in both sensitivity and specificity that could not be explained by subgroup analysis. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence as very low due to risk of bias, indirectness, inconsistency, and imprecision. The risk of bias and the applicability concerns for patient selection, index test, and reference standard domains were generally low or unclear due to unclear reporting. The main methodological issues identified were related to flow and timing due to high numbers of missing data. For all index tests, we assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low due to limitations in the design and conduct of the studies, applicability concerns and inconsistency of results.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We encountered high variability for all index tests, and the overall certainty of evidence in all areas was very low. No measure consistently offered either a sufficiently high sensitivity or specificity to detect viral non-suppression. These concerns limit their value in triaging patients for viral load monitoring or enhanced adherence support interventions.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Retroviral Agents; Child; HIV Infections; Humans; Reference Standards; Sensitivity and Specificity; Viral Load
PubMed: 35871531
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013080.pub2 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2022The SARS-CoV-2 infection has been advocated as an environmental trigger for autoimmune diseases, and a paradigmatic example comes from similarities between COVID-19 and...
INTRODUCTION
The SARS-CoV-2 infection has been advocated as an environmental trigger for autoimmune diseases, and a paradigmatic example comes from similarities between COVID-19 and the myositis-spectrum disease associated with antibodies against the melanoma differentiation antigen 5 (MDA5) in terms of clinical features, lung involvement, and immune mechanisms, particularly type I interferons (IFN).
CASE REPORT
We report a case of anti-MDA5 syndrome with skin manifestations, constitutional symptoms, and cardiomyopathy following a proven SARS-CoV-2 infection.
SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW
We systematically searched for publications on inflammatory myositis associated with COVID-19. We describe the main clinical, immunological, and demographic features, focusing our attention on the anti-MDA5 syndrome.
DISCUSSION
MDA5 is a pattern recognition receptor essential in the immune response against viruses and this may contribute to explain the production of anti-MDA5 antibodies in some SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. The activation of MDA5 induces the synthesis of type I IFN with an antiviral role, inversely correlated with COVID-19 severity. Conversely, elevated type I IFN levels correlate with disease activity in anti-MDA5 syndrome. While recognizing this ia broad area of uncertainty, we speculate that the strong type I IFN response observed in patients with anti-MDA5 syndrome, might harbor protective effects against viral infections, including COVID-19.
Topics: Antigens, Differentiation; Autoimmune Diseases; Autoimmunity; Biomarkers; COVID-19; Humans; Interferon Type I; Interferon-Induced Helicase, IFIH1; Melanoma; Myositis; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 35833112
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.937667 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022Coronavirus disease 2019 was first discovered in December 2019 and subsequently became a global pandemic with serious political, economic, and social implications...
Coronavirus disease 2019 was first discovered in December 2019 and subsequently became a global pandemic with serious political, economic, and social implications worldwide. We urgently need to find drugs that can be effective against COVID-19. Among the many observational studies, ivermectin has attracted the attention of many countries. Ivermectin is a broad-spectrum antiparasitic drug that also has some antiviral effects. We reviewed studies related to ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 over the last 2 years (2019.12-2022.03) search engines such as PubMed, Web of Science, and EBSCOhost. Seven studies showed a lower mortality rate in the ivermectin group than in the control group, six studies found that the ivermectin group had a significantly fewer length of hospitalization than the control group, and eight studies showed better negative RT-PCR responses in the IVM group than in the control group. Our systematic review indicated that ivermectin may be effective for mildly to moderately ill patients. There is no clear evidence or guidelines to recommend ivermectin as a therapeutic agent for COVID-19, so physicians should use it with caution in the absence of better alternatives in the clinical setting, and self-medication is not recommended for patients.
PubMed: 35800451
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.858693 -
Translational Psychiatry Jun 2022It remains unclear whether mitochondrial modulators (MMs) are beneficial in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive and related disorders. Thus, in an attempt to answer... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
It remains unclear whether mitochondrial modulators (MMs) are beneficial in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive and related disorders. Thus, in an attempt to answer this clinical question, we performed a systematic review and a random-effects meta-analysis of double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. The primary outcome was change in overall symptoms as measured using standardized rating scales. Other outcomes were response to treatment; improvement in anxiety-related scales scores, depression-related scale scores, Clinical Global Impression Severity Scale (CGI-S) scores, and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) scores; all-cause discontinuation; and individual adverse events. We calculated the standardized mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. We reviewed 17 studies (n = 629, 72.62% female; duration = 2-20 weeks; mean age = 30.47 years) of MMs: eicosapentaenoic acid (K = 1), folic acid (K = 1), lithium (K = 1), N-acetylcysteine (K = 10), inositol (K = 3), and silymarin (K = 1). MMs outperformed placebo in overall improvement in symptoms (p < 0.01) and in improving anxiety-related scale scores (p = 0.05). Subgroup analysis of individual MMs revealed that although overall symptoms were better improved by N-acetylcysteine (p < 0.01) and lithium (p = 0.04), no MMs outperformed placebo in terms of improving anxiety-related scale scores. Neither pooled nor individual MMs outperformed placebo in improving response to treatment, depression-related scale scores, CGI-S scores, SDS scores, or all-cause discontinuation. N-acetylcysteine was no more associated with a higher incidence of individual adverse events including gastrointestinal symptoms, than placebo. In conclusion, N-acetylcysteine was beneficial in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive and related disorders. However, further study with larger samples is necessary to confirm this finding.
Topics: Acetylcysteine; Adult; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Inositol; Lithium; Male; Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35764619
DOI: 10.1038/s41398-022-02026-5 -
Infectious Diseases and Therapy Aug 2022Sofosbuvir/Velpatasvir/Voxilaprevir (SOF/VEL/VOX) is the first direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy approved for patients who have previously failed a DAA-containing...
INTRODUCTION
Sofosbuvir/Velpatasvir/Voxilaprevir (SOF/VEL/VOX) is the first direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy approved for patients who have previously failed a DAA-containing regimen including NS5A inhibitors. In clinical trials, SOF/VEL/VOX was associated with high rates of sustained virologic response at post-treatment week 12 (SVR12) and was well tolerated. However, the effectiveness and safety of SOF/VEL/VOX in the real world remained uncertain. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the real world effectiveness and safety of SOF/VEL/VOX.
METHODS
We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for relevant real world studies published before January 28, 2022. Patients with previous treatment failure who received SOF/VEL/VOX were included. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients achieving SVR12. Secondary outcome included adverse events (AEs) during treatment.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies with a total of 1796 HCV-infected patients with previous treatment failure were included. SVR12 rates were 93% (95% CI 91-95) in the ITT populations (n = 1517, 11 cohorts) and 96% (95% CI 95-97) in the PP populations (n = 1187, 10 cohorts). SVR12 rates were significantly higher in non-GT3-infected patients (OR = 2.29, 95% CI 1.23-4.27, P = 0.009) and non-cirrhotic patients (OR = 2.22, 95% CI 1.07-4.60, P = 0.03) than in GT3-infected patients and cirrhotic patients. Furthermore, the SVR12 rates of previous treatment of SOF/VEL were significantly lower than those of other regimens in both ITT and PP populations (P ≤ 0.001). Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 30% (228/760) of patients. Serious AEs (SAEs) were reported in 3.82% (29/760) of patients. The most frequently reported AEs were headache, asthenia, nausea, fatigue, and diarrhea, which were mostly mild in severity. AE-related treatment discontinuations were reported in 0.66% (5/760) of patients.
CONCLUSIONS
Consistent with clinical trials, the real world evidence indicates that SOF/VEL/VOX is a well-tolerated and highly effective salvage therapy for HCV-infected patients with previous treatment failure. However, there may still be a risk of treatment failure for patients with GT3 infection, cirrhosis, or SOF/VEL treatment failure. The protocol of this study was registered at PROSPERO, registration no. CRD 42022306828.
PubMed: 35749010
DOI: 10.1007/s40121-022-00666-0 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2022Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are laboratory-produced molecules derived from the B cells of an infected host. They are being investigated as potential prophylaxis to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are laboratory-produced molecules derived from the B cells of an infected host. They are being investigated as potential prophylaxis to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs, including mAb fragments, to prevent infection with SARS-CoV-2 causing COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases on 27 April 2022. We checked references, searched citations, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs, including mAb fragments, alone or combined, versus an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention, for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) of COVID-19. We excluded studies of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs to treat COVID-19, as these are part of another review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed search results, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane RoB 2. Prioritised outcomes were infection with SARS-CoV-2, development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms, all-cause mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four RCTs of 9749 participants who were previously uninfected and unvaccinated at baseline. Median age was 42 to 76 years. Around 20% to 77.5% of participants in the PrEP studies and 35% to 100% in the PEP studies had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19. At baseline, 72.8% to 82.2% were SARS-CoV-2 antibody seronegative. We identified four ongoing studies, and two studies awaiting classification. Pre-exposure prophylaxis Tixagevimab/cilgavimab versus placebo One study evaluated tixagevimab/cilgavimab versus placebo in participants exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, Alpha, Beta, and Delta variant. About 39.3% of participants were censored for efficacy due to unblinding and 13.8% due to vaccination. Within six months, tixagevimab/cilgavimab probably decreases infection with SARS-CoV-2 (risk ratio (RR) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.70; 4685 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), decreases development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.35; 5172 participants; high-certainty evidence), and may decrease admission to hospital (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0 to 0.59; 5197 participants; low-certainty evidence). Tixagevimab/cilgavimab may result in little to no difference on mortality within six months, all-grade AEs, and SAEs (low-certainty evidence). Quality of life was not reported. Casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo One study evaluated casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo in participants who may have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, Alpha, and Delta variant. About 36.5% of participants opted for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and had a mean of 66.1 days between last dose of intervention and vaccination. Within six months, casirivimab/imdevimab may decrease infection with SARS-CoV-2 (RR 0.01, 95% CI 0 to 0.14; 825 seronegative participants; low-certainty evidence) and may decrease development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0 to 0.27; 969 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether casirivimab/imdevimab affects mortality regardless of the SARS-CoV-2 antibody serostatus. Casirivimab/imdevimab may increase all-grade AEs slightly (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.31; 969 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects on grade 3 to 4 AEs and SAEs within six months. Admission to hospital and quality of life were not reported. Postexposure prophylaxis Bamlanivimab versus placebo One study evaluated bamlanivimab versus placebo in participants who may have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type. Bamlanivimab probably decreases infection with SARS-CoV-2 versus placebo by day 29 (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.98; 966 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference on all-cause mortality by day 60 (R 0.83, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.70; 966 participants; low-certainty evidence), may increase all-grade AEs by week eight (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.46; 966 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may increase slightly SAEs (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.91; 966 participants; low-certainty evidence). Development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms, admission to hospital within 30 days, and quality of life were not reported. Casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo One study evaluated casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo in participants who may have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, Alpha, and potentially, but less likely to Delta variant. Within 30 days, casirivimab/imdevimab decreases infection with SARS-CoV-2 (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.48; 1505 participants; high-certainty evidence), development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (broad-term definition) (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.35; 1505 participants; high-certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference on mortality (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.43; 1505 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may result in little to no difference in admission to hospital. Casirivimab/imdevimab may slightly decrease grade 3 to 4 AEs (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.02; 2617 participants; low-certainty evidence), decreases all-grade AEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.80; 2617 participants; high-certainty evidence), and may result in little to no difference on SAEs in participants regardless of SARS-CoV-2 antibody serostatus. Quality of life was not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For PrEP, there is a decrease in development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (high certainty), infection with SARS-CoV-2 (moderate certainty), and admission to hospital (low certainty) with tixagevimab/cilgavimab. There is low certainty of a decrease in infection with SARS-CoV-2, and development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms; and a higher rate for all-grade AEs with casirivimab/imdevimab. For PEP, there is moderate certainty of a decrease in infection with SARS-CoV-2 and low certainty for a higher rate for all-grade AEs with bamlanivimab. There is high certainty of a decrease in infection with SARS-CoV-2, development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms, and a higher rate for all-grade AEs with casirivimab/imdevimab. Although there is high-to-moderate certainty evidence for some outcomes, it is insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions. These findings only apply to people unvaccinated against COVID-19. They are only applicable to the variants prevailing during the study and not other variants (e.g. Omicron). In vitro, tixagevimab/cilgavimab is effective against Omicron, but there are no clinical data. Bamlanivimab and casirivimab/imdevimab are ineffective against Omicron in vitro. Further studies are needed and publication of four ongoing studies may resolve the uncertainties.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antibodies, Neutralizing; Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological; COVID-19; Humans; Middle Aged; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 35713300
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014945.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2022With potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors represent a potential treatment for symptomatic severe acute respiratory... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
With potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors represent a potential treatment for symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. They may modulate the exuberant immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Furthermore, a direct antiviral effect has been described. An understanding of the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is required.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) on clinical outcomes in individuals (outpatient or in-hospital) with any severity of COVID-19, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, medRxiv, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program (VA ESP) Covid-19 Evidence Reviews to identify studies up to February 2022. We monitor newly published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) weekly using the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and have incorporated all new trials from this source until the first week of April 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs that compared systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) for the treatment of individuals with COVID-19. We used the WHO definitions of illness severity for COVID-19.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality (up to day 28), all-cause mortality (up to day 60), improvement in clinical status: alive and without need for in-hospital medical care (up to day 28), worsening of clinical status: new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (up to day 28), adverse events (any grade), serious adverse events, secondary infections.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six RCTs with 11,145 participants investigating systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo). Standard of care followed local protocols and included the application of glucocorticoids (five studies reported their use in a range of 70% to 95% of their participants; one study restricted glucocorticoid use to non-COVID-19 specific indications), antibiotic agents, anticoagulants, and antiviral agents, as well as non-pharmaceutical procedures. At study entry, about 65% of participants required low-flow oxygen, about 23% required high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation, about 8% did not need any respiratory support, and only about 4% were intubated. We also identified 13 ongoing studies, and 9 studies that are completed or terminated and where classification is pending. Individuals with moderate to severe disease Four studies investigated the single agent baricitinib (10,815 participants), one tofacitinib (289 participants), and one ruxolitinib (41 participants). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (95 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 131 of 1000 participants in the control group; risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.91; 6 studies, 11,145 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 60 (125 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 181 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86; 2 studies, 1626 participants; high-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status (discharged alive or hospitalised, but no longer requiring ongoing medical care) (801 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 778 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.06; 4 studies, 10,802 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). They probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28) (154 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 172 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.98; 2 studies, 9417 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events (any grade) (427 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 441 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; 3 studies, 1885 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events (160 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 202 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.92; 4 studies, 2901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference to the rate of secondary infection (111 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 113 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 4 studies, 10,041 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 disease or type of JAK inhibitor did not identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease We did not identify any trial for this population.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19, moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality. Baricitinib was the most often evaluated JAK inhibitor. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that they probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status and make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events of any grade, whilst they probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events. Based on low-certainty evidence, JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference in the rate of secondary infection. Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 or type of agent failed to identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Currently, there is no evidence on the efficacy and safety of systemic JAK inhibitors for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised individuals).
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Coinfection; Humans; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Oxygen; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; SARS-CoV-2; United States; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35695334
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015209 -
Computational and Structural... 2022Synergistic effects between drugs are rare and highly context-dependent and patient-specific. Hence, there is a need to develop novel approaches to stratify patients for... (Review)
Review
Synergistic effects between drugs are rare and highly context-dependent and patient-specific. Hence, there is a need to develop novel approaches to stratify patients for optimal therapy regimens, especially in the context of personalized design of combinatorial treatments. Computational methods enable systematic screening of combination effects, and can thereby prioritize most potent combinations for further testing, among the massive number of potential combinations. To help researchers to choose a prediction method that best fits for various real-world applications, we carried out a systematic literature review of 117 computational methods developed to date for drug combination prediction, and classified the methods in terms of their combination prediction tasks and input data requirements. Most current methods focus on prediction or classification of combination synergy, and only a few methods consider the efficacy and potential toxicity of the combinations, which are the key determinants of therapeutic success of drug treatments. Furthermore, there is a need to further develop methods that enable dose-specific predictions of combination effects across multiple doses, which is important for clinical translation of the predictions, as well as model-based identification of biomarkers predictive of heterogeneous drug combination responses. Even if most of the computational methods reviewed focus on anticancer applications, many of the modelling approaches are also applicable to antiviral and other diseases or indications.
PubMed: 35685365
DOI: 10.1016/j.csbj.2022.05.055 -
Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and... Aug 2022Sofosbuvir (SOF) is a new and highly effective medication that dramatically improved hepatitis C virus (HCV) management. However, ribavirin (RBV) is still added to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE
Sofosbuvir (SOF) is a new and highly effective medication that dramatically improved hepatitis C virus (HCV) management. However, ribavirin (RBV) is still added to SOF-based medication regimens in several clinical scenarios, despite its well-known toxicities. The aim of our study is to systematically review and analyse the impact of adding RBV to SOF-based medication regimens on clinical outcomes among HCV patients.
METHODS
Included studies were randomized trials comparing the same SOF-based medication regimens with and without RBV in HCV patients and measuring serious adverse events (SAEs) and/or sustained virologic response at 12 weeks post-treatment (SVR-12). Two investigators independently searched PubMed and Cochrane Library through September 2021. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess trials quality. Clinical outcomes were analysed as risk ratios (RR) using a random effects model using R version 4.1.2.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Our study included a total of 26 trials with 5058 HCV patients. Quality assessment showed moderate risk of bias for most trials. Upon adding RBV, there was no significant difference in SAEs (RR 1.07, 95% CI: 0.77-1.48, I = 10%), nor an impact on SVR-12 (RR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.98-1.01, I = 41%). There was no evidence of publication bias for either outcome. Subgroup analysis consistently showed lack of benefit among HCV subgroups. Additionally, NCT01826981 was identified as the main source of heterogeneity in the SVR-12 outcome.
WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION
Our findings suggest nonsignificant differences in safety and efficacy between SOF-based medication regimens with and without RBV which should be considered in clinical practice.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Genotype; Hepacivirus; Hepatitis C; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Humans; Ribavirin; Sofosbuvir; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35678040
DOI: 10.1111/jcpt.13698 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2022With the development of direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs), the research on kidney transplantation from Hepatitis C virus (HCV)-viremic donors to HCV-negative...
BACKGROUND
With the development of direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs), the research on kidney transplantation from Hepatitis C virus (HCV)-viremic donors to HCV-negative recipients has grown. The objective of this comprehensive analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DAAs in kidney transplantation from HCV-viremic donors to negative recipients.
METHODS
Multiple databases were searched for a systematic and comprehensive up to March 2022. The primary outcomes included the percentage of sustained virological response at week 12 after the end of treatment (SVR12), adverse events (AEs; any grade), and severe adverse events (SAEs) as the endpoints. Publication bias was examined by using the funnel plots and Egger's test.
RESULTS
In total, 16 studies with 454 subjects were included in the study and the pooled estimate of SVR12, AEs, and SAEs rates were 100.0% (95% CI: 99.2-100.0), 1.9%(95%CI: 0.0-4.9), and 0.0% (95%CI: 0.0-1.5). Subgroup analysis showed that pooled SVR12 rates were 100.0% (95%CI: 99.6-100.0) for genotype (GT)1a and 96.3% (95%CI: 83.3-100.0) for GT2; 100.0% (95%CI: 98.9-100.0) for DAAs treatments; and 100.0% (95%CI: 98.2-100.0) for prophylaxis subgroup. Egger's tests showed that no publication bias was found in this study.
CONCLUSION
This comprehensive analysis showed the high efficacy and safety of DAAs in kidney transplantation from HCV-viremic donors to HCV-negative recipients.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=246541.
PubMed: 35665327
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.802686