-
BMC Pharmacology & Toxicology Dec 2020Bempedoic acid is a new drug that reduces cholesterol synthesis via inhibiting ATP citrate lyase. It remains unclear whether the combination of bempedoic acid and other... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of bempedoic acid alone or combining with other lipid-lowering therapies in hypercholesterolemic patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Bempedoic acid is a new drug that reduces cholesterol synthesis via inhibiting ATP citrate lyase. It remains unclear whether the combination of bempedoic acid and other lipid-lowering drugs is better than these drugs alone. This study systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of bempedoic acid monotherapy or combination togethers in hypercholesterolemic patients.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials were searched across Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, web of science, etc. The net change scores [least squares mean (LSM) percentage change] in LDL-C level were meta-analyzed using weighted mean difference. The reductions in other lipids including total cholesterol (TC), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) and apolipoprotein (ApoB) and high sensitivity C reactive protein (hsCRP) were also assessed. Odds ratio (OR) of the incidence of adverse events (AEs) were calculated to evaluate the safety of bempedoic acid.
RESULTS
A total of 13 trials (4858 participates) were included. Pooled data showed that the combination togethers resulted in greater reductions in LDL-C level than monotherapies (bempedoic acid + statin vs. statin: LSM difference (%), - 18.37, 95% CI, - 20.16 to - 16.57, I = 0; bempedoic acid + ezetimibe vs. ezetimibe: LSM difference (%), - 18.89, 95% CI, - 29.66 to - 8.13, I = 87%). But the difference in efficacy between bempedoic acid and ezetimibe was not obvious. Meta-regression analysis showed the treatment duration was a source of heterogeneity (adj R = 16.92, 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.72). Furthermore, the background therapy of statin before screening decreased the efficacy of bempedoic acid. In addition, bempedoic acid also resulted in a significant reduction in TC, non-HDL-C, ApoB and hsCRP level. The OR of muscle-related AEs by the combination of bempedoic acid and statin was 1.29 (95% CI, 1.00 to 1.67, I = 0) when compared with statin alone.
CONCLUSION
This study showed the efficacy of combination togethers were similar but stronger than these drugs alone. Of note, a trend of high risk of muscle-related AEs by the combination of bempedoic acid and statin was observed, though it is not statistically significant, such risk is needed to be confirmed by more trials, because it is important for us to determine which is the better combinative administration for statin-intolerant patients.
Topics: Anticholesteremic Agents; Dicarboxylic Acids; Drug Therapy, Combination; Fatty Acids; Humans; Hypercholesterolemia; Hypolipidemic Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33276805
DOI: 10.1186/s40360-020-00463-w -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Renin inhibitors (RIs) reduce blood pressure more than placebo, with the magnitude of this effect thought to be similar to that for angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Renin inhibitors (RIs) reduce blood pressure more than placebo, with the magnitude of this effect thought to be similar to that for angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. However, a drug's efficacy in lowering blood pressure cannot be considered as a definitive indicator of its effectiveness in reducing mortality and morbidity. The effectiveness and safety of RIs compared to ACE inhibitors in treating hypertension is unknown.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of renin inhibitors compared to ACE inhibitors in people with primary hypertension.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Hypertension Group Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to August 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers about further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized, active-controlled, double-blinded studies (RCTs) with at least four weeks follow-up in people with primary hypertension, which compared renin inhibitors with ACE inhibitors and reported morbidity, mortality, adverse events or blood pressure outcomes. We excluded people with proven secondary hypertension.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risks of bias and entered the data for analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We include 11 RCTs involving 13,627 participants, with a mean baseline age from 51.5 to 74.2 years. Follow-up duration ranged from four weeks to 36.6 months. There was no difference between RIs and ACE inhibitors for the outcomes: all-cause mortality: risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.18; 5 RCTs, 5962 participants; low-certainty evidence; total myocardial infarction: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.22 to 3.39; 2 RCTs, 957 participants; very low-certainty evidence; adverse events: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.03; 10 RTCs, 6007 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; serious adverse events: RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.64; 10 RTCs, 6007 participants; low-certainty evidence; and withdrawal due to adverse effects: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.06; 10 RTCs, 6008 participants; low-certainty evidence. No data were available for total cardiovascular events, heart failure, stroke, end-stage renal disease or change in heart rate. Low-certainty evidence suggested that RIs reduced systolic blood pressure: mean difference (MD) -1.72, 95% CI -2.47 to -0.97; 9 RCTs, 5001 participants; and diastolic blood pressure: MD -1.18, 95% CI -1.65 to -0.72; 9 RCTs, 5001 participants, to a greater extent than ACE inhibitors, but we judged this to be more likely due to bias than a true effect. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For the treatment of hypertension, we have low certainty that renin inhibitors (RI) and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors do not differ for all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction. We have low to moderate certainty that they do not differ for adverse events. Small reductions in blood pressure with renin inhibitors compared to ACE inhibitors are of low certainty. More independent, large, long-term trials are needed to compare RIs with ACE inhibitors, particularly assessing morbidity and mortality outcomes, but also on blood pressure-lowering effect.
Topics: Aged; Amides; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Antihypertensive Agents; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cause of Death; Female; Fumarates; Heart Rate; Humans; Irbesartan; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Lisinopril; Male; Middle Aged; Myocardial Infarction; Patient Dropouts; Ramipril; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Renin
PubMed: 33089502
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012569.pub2 -
Cardiovascular Diabetology Aug 2020Bempedoic acid is an oral, once-daily, first-in-class drug being developed for the treatment of hyperlipidemia. However, evidence of bempedoic acid use for the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Bempedoic acid is an oral, once-daily, first-in-class drug being developed for the treatment of hyperlipidemia. However, evidence of bempedoic acid use for the prevention of cardiovascular events and diabetes is lacking. Thus, we aim to evaluate the benefit and safety of bempedoic acid use for the prevention of cardiovascular events and diabetes.
METHODS
We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials with no language restriction from inception until March 3, 2020. Pairs of reviewers independently identified randomized controlled trials comparing the use of bempedoic acid with placebo or no treatment for primary prevention of cardiovascular events in statin-intolerant patients with hypercholesterolemia. The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiac events, and percent change in LDL-C.
RESULTS
We identified 11 trials including a total of 4391 participants. Bempedoic acid use was associated with a reduction in composite cardiovascular outcome (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.56-0.99; I = 0%). Bempedoic acid reduced LDL-C levels (MD - 22.91, 95% CI - 27.35 to - 18.47; I = 99%), and similarly reduced CRP levels (MD -24.70, 95% CI - 32.10 to - 17.30; I = 53%). Bempedoic acid was associated with a reduction in rates of new-onset or worsening diabetes (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44-0.96; I = 23%).
CONCLUSIONS
Bempedoic acid in patients with hypercholesterolemia was associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events and diabetes.
Topics: Aged; Biomarkers; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cholesterol, LDL; Diabetes Mellitus; Dicarboxylic Acids; Down-Regulation; Fatty Acids; Female; Humans; Hypercholesterolemia; Hypolipidemic Agents; Male; Middle Aged; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32787939
DOI: 10.1186/s12933-020-01101-9 -
Journal of the American Heart... Aug 2020Background Bempedoic acid (BA) is a novel lipid-lowering drug. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on efficacy and safety of BA compared with standard... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Background Bempedoic acid (BA) is a novel lipid-lowering drug. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on efficacy and safety of BA compared with standard treatment in patients with hypercholesterolemia. Methods and Results Studies were systematically searched in the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and EMBASE databases. Efficacy outcome was represented by percentage changes (mean difference [MD] with pertinent 95% CIs) in total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and hs-CRP (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein) in BA patients and controls. Seven studies were included (2767 BA-treated patients and 1469 controls), showing a more significant reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD, -17.5%; 95% CI, -22.9% to -12.0%), total cholesterol (MD, -10.9%; 95% CI, -13.3% to -8.5%), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD, -12.3%; 95% CI, -15.3% to -9.20%), apolipoprotein B (MD, -10.6%; 95% CI, -13.2% to -8.02%), and hs-CRP (MD, -13.2%; 95% CI, -16.7% to -9.79%) in BA-treated patients compared with controls. Results were confirmed when separately analyzing studies on patients with high cardiovascular risk, studies on statin-intolerant patients, and studies on patients with hypercholesterolemia on maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy. BA-treated subjects reported a higher rate of treatment discontinuation caused by adverse effects, of gout flare, and of increase in uric acid compared with controls. On the other hand, BA-treated patients showed a lower incidence of new-onset diabetes mellitus than controls. Conclusions BA is associated with a significant reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and hs-CRP compared with standard treatment. Documented efficacy is accompanied by an acceptable safety profile.
Topics: Dicarboxylic Acids; Fatty Acids; Humans; Hypercholesterolemia; Hypolipidemic Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32689862
DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.119.016262 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Anaemia is a condition where the number of red blood cells (and consequently their oxygen-carrying capacity) is insufficient to meet the body's physiologic needs.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Anaemia is a condition where the number of red blood cells (and consequently their oxygen-carrying capacity) is insufficient to meet the body's physiologic needs. Fortification of wheat flour is deemed a useful strategy to reduce anaemia in populations.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the benefits and harms of wheat flour fortification with iron alone or with other vitamins and minerals on anaemia, iron status and health-related outcomes in populations over two years of age.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and other databases up to 4 September 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included cluster- or individually randomised controlled trials (RCT) carried out among the general population from any country aged two years and above. The interventions were fortification of wheat flour with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients. Trials comparing any type of food item prepared from flour fortified with iron of any variety of wheat were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the search results and assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data from included studies and assessed risk of bias. We followed Cochrane methods in this review.
MAIN RESULTS
Our search identified 3048 records, after removing duplicates. We included nine trials, involving 3166 participants, carried out in Bangladesh, Brazil, India, Kuwait, Phillipines, Sri Lanka and South Africa. The duration of interventions varied from 3 to 24 months. One study was carried out among adult women and one trial among both children and nonpregnant women. Most of the included trials were assessed as low or unclear risk of bias for key elements of selection, performance or reporting bias. Three trials used 41 mg to 60 mg iron/kg flour, two trials used less than 40 mg iron/kg and three trials used more than 60 mg iron/kg flour. One trial employed various iron levels based on type of iron used: 80 mg/kg for electrolytic and reduced iron and 40 mg/kg for ferrous fumarate. All included studies contributed data for the meta-analyses. Seven studies compared wheat flour fortified with iron alone versus unfortified wheat flour, three studies compared wheat flour fortified with iron in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified wheat flour and two studies compared wheat flour fortified with iron in combination with other micronutrients versus fortified wheat flour with the same micronutrients (but not iron). No studies included a 'no intervention' comparison arm. None of the included trials reported any other adverse side effects (including constipation, nausea, vomiting, heartburn or diarrhoea). Wheat flour fortified with iron alone versus unfortified wheat flour (no micronutrients added) Wheat flour fortification with iron alone may have little or no effect on anaemia (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.07; 5 studies; 2200 participants; low-certainty evidence). It probably makes little or no difference on iron deficiency (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.07; 3 studies; 633 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and we are uncertain about whether wheat flour fortified with iron increases haemoglobin concentrations by an average 3.30 (g/L) (95% CI 0.86 to 5.74; 7 studies; 2355 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No trials reported data on adverse effects in children, except for risk of infection or inflammation at the individual level. The intervention probably makes little or no difference to risk of Infection or inflammation at individual level as measured by C-reactive protein (CRP) (moderate-certainty evidence). Wheat flour fortified with iron in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified wheat flour (no micronutrients added) Wheat flour fortified with iron, in combination with other micronutrients, may or may not decrease anaemia (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.31; 2 studies; 322 participants; low-certainty evidence). It makes little or no difference to average risk of iron deficiency (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.00; 3 studies; 387 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may or may not increase average haemoglobin concentrations (mean difference (MD) 3.29, 95% CI -0.78 to 7.36; 3 studies; 384 participants; low-certainty evidence). No trials reported data on adverse effects in children. Wheat flour fortified with iron in combination with other micronutrients versus fortified wheat flour with same micronutrients (but not iron) Given the very low certainty of the evidence, the review authors are uncertain about the effects of wheat flour fortified with iron in combination with other micronutrients versus fortified wheat flour with same micronutrients (but not iron) in reducing anaemia (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.71; 1 study; 127 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in reducing iron deficiency (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.97; 1 study; 127 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The intervention may make little or no difference to the average haemoglobin concentration (MD 0.81, 95% CI -1.28 to 2.89; 2 studies; 488 participants; low-certainty evidence). No trials reported data on the adverse effects in children. Eight out of nine trials reported source of funding with most having multiple sources. Funding source does not appear to have distorted the results in any of the assessed trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Eating food items containing wheat flour fortified with iron alone may have little or no effect on anaemia and probably makes little or no difference in iron deficiency. We are uncertain on whether the intervention with wheat flour fortified with iron increases haemoglobin concentrations improve blood haemoglobin concentrations. Consuming food items prepared from wheat flour fortified with iron, in combination with other micronutrients, has little or no effect on anaemia, makes little or no difference to iron deficiency and may or may not improve haemoglobin concentrations. In comparison to fortified flour with micronutrients but no iron, wheat flour fortified with iron with other micronutrients, the effects on anaemia and iron deficiency are uncertain as certainty of the evidence has been assessed as very low. The intervention may make little or no difference to the average haemoglobin concentrations in the population. None of the included trials reported any other adverse side effects. The effects of this intervention on other health outcomes are unclear.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anemia; Child; Child, Preschool; Edetic Acid; Female; Ferric Compounds; Ferrous Compounds; Flour; Food, Fortified; Fumarates; Hemoglobin A; Humans; Infant; Iron; Iron Deficiencies; Male; Micronutrients; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Triticum; Young Adult
PubMed: 32677706
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011302.pub2 -
PLoS Medicine Jul 2020Bempedoic acid is a first-in-class lipid-lowering drug recommended by guidelines for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia. Our objective was to estimate its average... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Bempedoic acid is a first-in-class lipid-lowering drug recommended by guidelines for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia. Our objective was to estimate its average effect on plasma lipids in humans and its safety profile.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of phase II and III randomized controlled trials on bempedoic acid (PROSPERO: CRD42019129687). PubMed (Medline), Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science databases were searched, with no language restriction, from inception to 5 August 2019. We included 10 RCTs (n = 3,788) comprising 26 arms (active arm [n = 2,460]; control arm [n = 1,328]). Effect sizes for changes in lipids and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) serum concentration were expressed as mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For safety analyses, odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Bempedoic acid significantly reduced total cholesterol (MD -14.94%; 95% CI -17.31%, -12.57%; p < 0.001), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD -18.17%; 95% CI -21.14%, -15.19%; p < 0.001), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD -22.94%; 95% CI -26.63%, -19.25%; p < 0.001), low-density lipoprotein particle number (MD -20.67%; 95% CI -23.84%, -17.48%; p < 0.001), apolipoprotein B (MD -15.18%; 95% CI -17.41%, -12.95%; p < 0.001), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD -5.83%; 95% CI -6.14%, -5.52%; p < 0.001), high-density lipoprotein particle number (MD -3.21%; 95% CI -6.40%, -0.02%; p = 0.049), and hsCRP (MD -27.03%; 95% CI -31.42%, -22.64%; p < 0.001). Bempedoic acid did not significantly modify triglyceride level (MD -1.51%; 95% CI -3.75%, 0.74%; p = 0.189), very-low-density lipoprotein particle number (MD 3.79%; 95% CI -9.81%, 17.39%; p = 0.585), and apolipoprotein A-1 (MD -1.83%; 95% CI -5.23%, 1.56%; p = 0.290). Treatment with bempedoic acid was positively associated with an increased risk of discontinuation of treatment (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.06, 1.76; p = 0.015), elevated serum uric acid (OR 3.55; 95% CI 1.03, 12.27; p = 0.045), elevated liver enzymes (OR 4.28; 95% CI 1.34, 13.71; p = 0.014), and elevated creatine kinase (OR 3.79; 95% CI 1.06, 13.51; p = 0.04), though it was strongly associated with a decreased risk of new onset or worsening diabetes (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.39, 0.90; p = 0.01). The main limitation of this meta-analysis is related to the relatively small number of individuals involved in the studies, which were often short or middle term in length.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results show that bempedoic acid has favorable effects on lipid profile and hsCRP levels and an acceptable safety profile. Further well-designed studies are needed to explore its longer-term safety.
Topics: Anticholesteremic Agents; Apolipoproteins B; Cholesterol; Cholesterol, LDL; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Dicarboxylic Acids; Fatty Acids; Humans; Hypercholesterolemia; Peptide Fragments; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32673317
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003121 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2020Acne is an inflammatory disorder with a high global burden. It is common in adolescents and primarily affects sebaceous gland-rich areas. The clinical benefit of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Acne is an inflammatory disorder with a high global burden. It is common in adolescents and primarily affects sebaceous gland-rich areas. The clinical benefit of the topical acne treatments azelaic acid, salicylic acid, nicotinamide, sulphur, zinc, and alpha-hydroxy acid is unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of topical treatments (azelaic acid, salicylic acid, nicotinamide, zinc, alpha-hydroxy acid, and sulphur) for acne.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to May 2019: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Clinical randomised controlled trials of the six topical treatments compared with other topical treatments, placebo, or no treatment in people with acne.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Key outcomes included participants' global self-assessment of acne improvement (PGA), withdrawal for any reason, minor adverse events (assessed as total number of participants who experienced at least one minor adverse event), and quality of life.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 49 trials (3880 reported participants) set in clinics, hospitals, research centres, and university settings in Europe, Asia, and the USA. The vast majority of participants had mild to moderate acne, were aged between 12 to 30 years (range: 10 to 45 years), and were female. Treatment lasted over eight weeks in 59% of the studies. Study duration ranged from three months to three years. We assessed 26 studies as being at high risk of bias in at least one domain, but most domains were at low or unclear risk of bias. We grouped outcome assessment into short-term (less than or equal to 4 weeks), medium-term (from 5 to 8 weeks), and long-term treatment (more than 8 weeks). The following results were measured at the end of treatment, which was mainly long-term for the PGA outcome and mixed length (medium-term mainly) for minor adverse events. Azelaic acid In terms of treatment response (PGA), azelaic acid is probably less effective than benzoyl peroxide (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.95; 1 study, 351 participants), but there is probably little or no difference when comparing azelaic acid to tretinoin (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.14; 1 study, 289 participants) (both moderate-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference in PGA when comparing azelaic acid to clindamycin (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.38; 1 study, 229 participants; low-quality evidence), but we are uncertain whether there is a difference between azelaic acid and adapalene (1 study, 55 participants; very low-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence indicates there may be no differences in rates of withdrawal for any reason when comparing azelaic acid with benzoyl peroxide (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.29; 1 study, 351 participants), clindamycin (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.56; 2 studies, 329 participants), or tretinoin (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.47; 2 studies, 309 participants), but we are uncertain whether there is a difference between azelaic acid and adapalene (1 study, 55 participants; very low-quality evidence). In terms of total minor adverse events, we are uncertain if there is a difference between azelaic acid compared to adapalene (1 study; 55 participants) or benzoyl peroxide (1 study, 30 participants) (both very low-quality evidence). There may be no difference when comparing azelaic acid to clindamycin (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.67 to 3.35; 1 study, 100 participants; low-quality evidence). Total minor adverse events were not reported in the comparison of azelaic acid versus tretinoin, but individual application site reactions were reported, such as scaling. Salicylic acid For PGA, there may be little or no difference between salicylic acid and tretinoin (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09; 1 study, 46 participants; low-quality evidence); we are not certain whether there is a difference between salicylic acid and pyruvic acid (1 study, 86 participants; very low-quality evidence); and PGA was not measured in the comparison of salicylic acid versus benzoyl peroxide. There may be no difference between groups in withdrawals when comparing salicylic acid and pyruvic acid (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.50; 1 study, 86 participants); when salicylic acid was compared to tretinoin, neither group had withdrawals (both based on low-quality evidence (2 studies, 74 participants)). We are uncertain whether there is a difference in withdrawals between salicylic acid and benzoyl peroxide (1 study, 41 participants; very low-quality evidence). For total minor adverse events, we are uncertain if there is any difference between salicylic acid and benzoyl peroxide (1 study, 41 participants) or tretinoin (2 studies, 74 participants) (both very low-quality evidence). This outcome was not reported for salicylic acid versus pyruvic acid, but individual application site reactions were reported, such as scaling and redness. Nicotinamide Four studies evaluated nicotinamide against clindamycin or erythromycin, but none measured PGA. Low-quality evidence showed there may be no difference in withdrawals between nicotinamide and clindamycin (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.60; 3 studies, 216 participants) or erythromycin (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.46 to 4.22; 1 study, 158 participants), or in total minor adverse events between nicotinamide and clindamycin (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.99; 3 studies, 216 participants; low-quality evidence). Total minor adverse events were not reported in the nicotinamide versus erythromycin comparison. Alpha-hydroxy (fruit) acid There may be no difference in PGA when comparing glycolic acid peel to salicylic-mandelic acid peel (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.26; 1 study, 40 participants; low-quality evidence), and we are uncertain if there is a difference in total minor adverse events due to very low-quality evidence (1 study, 44 participants). Neither group had withdrawals (2 studies, 84 participants; low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared to benzoyl peroxide, azelaic acid probably leads to a worse treatment response, measured using PGA. When compared to tretinoin, azelaic acid probably makes little or no difference to treatment response. For other comparisons and outcomes the quality of evidence was low or very low. Risk of bias and imprecision limit our confidence in the evidence. We encourage the comparison of more methodologically robust head-to-head trials against commonly used active drugs.
Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Adapalene; Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Benzoyl Peroxide; Bias; Child; Clindamycin; Dermatologic Agents; Dicarboxylic Acids; Erythromycin; Female; Glycolates; Humans; Keratolytic Agents; Male; Mandelic Acids; Niacinamide; Patient Dropouts; Pyruvic Acid; Quality of Life; Salicylic Acid; Sulfur; Tretinoin; Young Adult; Zinc
PubMed: 32356369
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011368.pub2 -
Advances in Therapy Jun 2020Triple inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β-agonist (ICS/LAMA/LABA) combination therapy is recommended for patients with chronic... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Efficacy of Budesonide/Glycopyrronium/Formoterol Fumarate Metered Dose Inhaler (BGF MDI) Versus Other Inhaled Corticosteroid/Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist/Long-Acting β-Agonist (ICS/LAMA/LABA) Triple Combinations in COPD: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-analysis.
INTRODUCTION
Triple inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β-agonist (ICS/LAMA/LABA) combination therapy is recommended for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who experience further exacerbations/symptoms on dual LAMA/LABA or ICS/LABA therapy. The relative efficacy of budesonide/glycopyrronium/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler 320/18/9.6 µg (BGF MDI) in COPD was compared with other ICS/LAMA/LABA fixed-dose and open combination therapies in a network meta-analysis (NMA).
METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials of at least 10-week duration, including at least one fixed-dose or open combination triple therapy arm, in patients with moderate to very severe COPD. Studies were assessed for methodological quality and risk of bias. A three-level hierarchical Bayesian NMA model was used to determine the exacerbation rate per patient per year as well as the following outcomes at week 24: changes from baseline in pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV), post-dose peak FEV, and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score; proportion of SGRQ responders; and Transition Dyspnea Index focal score. Change from baseline in rescue medication use over weeks 12-24 was also analyzed. Meta-regression and sensitivity analyses were used to assess heterogeneity across studies.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies (n = 29,232 patients) contributed to the NMA. ICS/LABA dual combinations were combined as a single treatment group to create a connected network. Across all outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences between BGF MDI and other triple ICS/LAMA/LABA fixed-dose (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol and beclomethasone dipropionate/glycopyrronium/formoterol fumarate) and open combinations with data available within the network. Results from sensitivity analyses and meta-regression were consistent with the base-case scenario.
CONCLUSION
This NMA suggested that BGF MDI has comparable efficacy to other ICS/LAMA/LABA fixed-dose and open triple combination therapies in reducing exacerbations and improving lung function and symptoms in patients with moderate to very severe COPD. Further research is warranted as additional evidence regarding triple therapies, especially fixed-dose combinations, becomes available.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Aged; Bayes Theorem; Bronchodilator Agents; Budesonide; Drug Combinations; Dyspnea; Female; Forced Expiratory Volume; Formoterol Fumarate; Fumarates; Glycopyrrolate; Humans; Male; Metered Dose Inhalers; Middle Aged; Muscarinic Agonists; Muscarinic Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Respiratory Function Tests; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32335859
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-020-01311-3 -
BMC Anesthesiology Mar 2020The evidence base for the widely accepted standard regimen of succinylcholine for rapid sequence induction (1.0 mg kg) remains unclear. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The evidence base for the widely accepted standard regimen of succinylcholine for rapid sequence induction (1.0 mg kg) remains unclear.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing any succinylcholine regimen with the standard regimen (1.0 mg kg) and reporting on intubating conditions and/or apnoea times. Results were expressed as absolute risk differences (ARD) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) for continuous data.
RESULTS
We retrieved six trials with relevant data of 864 patients (ASA 1 or 2, aged 18-65 years, body mass index < 30 kg m). Four regimens (0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6 mg kg) were compared with 1.0 mg kg in at least three trials each, and three (0.8, 1.5, 2 mg kg) in one each. With 0.3 to 0.5 mg kg, the likelihood of excellent intubating conditions was significantly decreased (ARD - 22% to - 67%). With 0.3 and 0.4 mg kg, but not with 0.5, 0.6, 0.8, 1.5 and 2.0 mg kg, the likelihood of unacceptable intubating conditions was significantly increased (ARD + 22% and + 32%, respectively). With 2.0 mg kg, but not with 0.8 or 1.5 mg kg, the likelihood of excellent intubating conditions was significantly increased (ARD + 23%). Apnoea times were significantly shorter with regimens ≤0.8 mg kg (MD - 1.0 to - 3.4 min) but were not reported with 1.5 or 2.0 mg kg.
CONCLUSIONS
With succinylcholine regimens ≤0.5 mg kg, excellent intubating conditions are less likely and apnoea times are shorter, compared with 1 mg kg. With 0.3 and 0.4 mg kg, unacceptable intubating conditions are more common. Succinylcholine 1.5 mg kg does not produce more often excellent conditions compared with 1 mg kg, while 2.0 mg kg does, but the database with these regimens is weak and apnoea times remain unknown. Limited information size and strong statistical heterogeneity decrease the certainty of the evidence.
Topics: Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Neuromuscular Depolarizing Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rapid Sequence Induction and Intubation; Succinylcholine
PubMed: 32122305
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-020-00968-1 -
The British Journal of Dermatology Aug 2019The persistence and effectiveness of systemic therapies for moderate-to-severe psoriasis in current clinical practice are poorly characterized.
BACKGROUND
The persistence and effectiveness of systemic therapies for moderate-to-severe psoriasis in current clinical practice are poorly characterized.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review observational studies investigating the persistence and effectiveness of acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters (FAE) and methotrexate, involving at least 100 adult patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, exposed to therapy for ≥ 3 months.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library and PubMed were searched from 1 January 2007 to 1 November 2017 for observational studies reporting on persistence (therapy duration or the proportion of patients discontinuing therapy during follow-up) or effectiveness [improvements in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) or Physician's Global Assessment (PGA)]. This review was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018099771.
RESULTS
Of 411 identified studies, eight involving 4624 patients with psoriasis were included. Variations in the definitions and analyses of persistence and effectiveness outcomes prevented a meta-analysis from being conducted. One prospective multicentre study reported drug survival probabilities of 23% (ciclosporin), 42% (acitretin) and 50% (methotrexate) at 1 year. Effectiveness outcomes were not reported for either acitretin or ciclosporin. The persistence and effectiveness of FAE and methotrexate were better characterized, but mean discontinuation times ranged from 28 to 50 months for FAE and 7·7 to 22·3 months for methotrexate. At 12 months of follow-up, three studies reported that 76% (FAE), 53% (methotrexate) and 59% (methotrexate) of patients achieved ≥ 75% reduction in PASI, and one reported that 76% of FAE-exposed patients achieved a markedly improved or clear PGA.
CONCLUSIONS
The comparative persistence and effectiveness of acitretin, ciclosporin, FAE and methotrexate in real-world clinical practice in the past decade cannot be well described due to the inconsistency of the methods used.
Topics: Acitretin; Adult; Cyclosporine; Dermatologic Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Fumarates; Humans; Methotrexate; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Observational Studies as Topic; Psoriasis; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30628069
DOI: 10.1111/bjd.17625