-
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease : JAD 2023Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common type of dementia, causing progressive decline of memory, thinking, and behavior, impairing daily functioning. Early AD (eAD)...
BACKGROUND
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common type of dementia, causing progressive decline of memory, thinking, and behavior, impairing daily functioning. Early AD (eAD) includes mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to AD and mild AD dementia.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to investigate symptomatic treatment prevalence and treatment patterns in eAD.
METHODS
Embase, MEDLINE, and EBM Reviews were searched in November 2021 for observational studies reporting symptomatic treatment patterns in eAD. The range of patients receiving treatment was collated. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) prevalence tool. Two independent reviewers screened the records, one performed data extraction and quality assessment while a second checked.
RESULTS
Twenty-one studies (prospective and retrospective cohorts, cross-sectional studies, and a survey) were included. Population size ranged from 23 to 2,028. Worldwide, 18 to 35% of patients diagnosed with MCI due to AD received any AChE inhibitor (three studies; n = 631), 7 to 8% memantine (two studies; n = 229), and 9% combination therapy (one study; n = 402). Patients receiving no treatment ranged from 41 to 54% (two studies; n = 733). Worldwide, in mild AD dementia patients, 13 to 89% received any AChE inhibitor (six studies; n = 3,715), 1 to 21% memantine (five studies, n = 3,527), and 0.4 to 39% combination therapy (four studies, n = 3,018). Patients receiving no treatment ranged from 9 to 26% (five studies, n = 4,073).
CONCLUSION
Limitations in reporting led to unclear risk of bias. The results reveal a pattern of use of symptomatic treatment in eAD beyond approved labels and highlights the opportunity for new consensus guidelines to inform clinical practice.
Topics: Humans; Alzheimer Disease; Memantine; Prospective Studies; Cross-Sectional Studies; Retrospective Studies; Dementia; Cognitive Dysfunction; Disease Progression
PubMed: 36404542
DOI: 10.3233/JAD-220471 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2014Around 3% of the world's population (approximately 160 million people) are chronically infected with hepatitis C virus. The proportion of infected people who develop... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Around 3% of the world's population (approximately 160 million people) are chronically infected with hepatitis C virus. The proportion of infected people who develop clinical symptoms varies between 5% and 40%. Combination therapy with pegylated interferon-alpha plus ribavirin eradicates the virus from the blood six months after treatment (sustained virological response) in approximately 40% to 80% of infected patients, depending on the viral genotype. New antiviral agents, such as boceprevir and telaprevir, in combination with standard therapy, can increase sustained virological response in genotype 1 infected patients to at least 70%. There is therefore an unmet need for drugs that can achieve a higher proportion of sustained virological response. Aminoadamantanes are antiviral drugs used for treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis C.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of aminoadamantanes for patients with chronic hepatitis C infection by conducting a systematic review with meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials, as well as trial sequential analyses.
SEARCH METHODS
We conducted electronic searches of the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (1996 to December 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2013, Issue 11 of 12 (1995 to December 2013), MEDLINE (1946 to December 2013), EMBASE (1974 to December 2013), Science Citation Index EXPANDED (1900 to December 2013), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), Google Scholar, and Eudrapharm up to December 2013 and checked the reference lists of identified publications.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials assessing aminoadamantanes in patients with chronic hepatitis C infection.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently extracted data. We assessed for risks of systematic errors ('bias') using the 'Risk of bias' tool. We analysed dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR) and continuous data with mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used trial sequential analysis to assess the risk of random errors ('play of chance'). We assessed quality using the GRADE system.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 41 randomised clinical trials with 6193 patients with chronic hepatitis C. All trials had high risk of bias. All included trials compared amantadine versus placebo or no intervention. Standard antiviral therapy was administered equally to the intervention and the control groups in 40 trials. The standard antiviral therapy, which was administered to both intervention groups, was interferon-alpha, interferon-alpha plus ribavirin, and peg interferon-alpha plus ribavirin, depending on the time when the trial was conducted.When we meta-analysed all trials together, the overall results demonstrated no significant effects of amantadine, when compared with placebo or no intervention, on our all-cause mortality or liver-related morbidity composite outcome (5/2353 (0.2%) versus 6/2264 (0.3%); RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.17; I² = 0%; 32 trials; very low quality). There was also no significant effect on adverse events (288/2869 (10%) versus 293/2777 (11%); RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.14; I² = 0%; 35 trials; moderate quality). We used both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses. Amantadine, when compared with placebo or no intervention, did not significantly influence the number of patients who failed to achieve a sustained virological response (1821/2861 (64%) versus 1737/2721 (64%); RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.02; I² = 35%; 35 trials; moderate quality). However, in the subgroup using interferon plus ribavirin, amantadine decreased the number of patients who failed to achieve a sustained virological response (422/666 (63%) versus 447/628 (71%); RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.96; I² = 41%; 11 trials; low quality). Similar results were found for failure to achieve an end of treatment virological response. Amantadine, when compared with placebo or no intervention, significantly decreased the number of patients without normalisation of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) serum levels at the end of treatment (671/1141 (59%) versus 732/1100 (67%); RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94; I² = 47%; 19 trials; low quality). Amantadine, when compared with placebo or no intervention, did not significantly influence the end of follow-up biochemical response (1133/1896 (60%) versus 1151/1848 (62%); RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.00; I² = 49%; 21 trials; low quality).The observed beneficial effects could be true effects but could also be due to both systematic errors (bias) and random errors (play of chance). The latter is due to the fact that trial sequential analyses could not confirm or refute our findings. We were not able to perform meta-analyses for failure of histological improvement or quality of life due to a lack of valid data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review does not demonstrate any significant effects of amantadine on all-cause mortality or liver-related morbidity composite outcome and on adverse events in patients with hepatitis C; however, the median trial duration was 12 months, with a median follow-up of six months, which is not long enough to assess the composite outcome sufficiently. Overall, we did not see an effect of amantadine on failure to achieve a sustained virological response. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that the combination of amantadine plus interferon-alpha and ribavirin seems to increase the number of patients achieving a sustained virological response. This finding may be caused by both systematic errors (bias) and risks of random errors (play of chance), but it could also be real. Based on the results of the overall evidence, it appears less likely that future trials assessing amantadine for patients with chronic hepatitis C will show strong benefits. Therefore, it is probably advisable to wait for the results of trials assessing other direct-acting antiviral drugs. In the absence of convincing evidence of benefit, the use of amantadine is justified in the context of randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of combination therapy. We found a lack of evidence on other aminoadamantanes than amantadine.
Topics: Adult; Amantadine; Antiviral Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Humans; Interferon-alpha; Polyethylene Glycols; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recombinant Proteins; Ribavirin; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24793264
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010125.pub2 -
Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation... Feb 2016The agitation crisis in the awakening phase after traumatic brain injury (TBI) is one of the most difficult behavioral disorders to alleviate. Current treatment options... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
The agitation crisis in the awakening phase after traumatic brain injury (TBI) is one of the most difficult behavioral disorders to alleviate. Current treatment options are heterogeneous and may involve excessive sedation. Practice guidelines are required by professionals in charge of TBI patients. Few reviews were published but those are old and based on expert opinions. The purpose of this work is to propose evidence-based guidelines to treat the agitation crisis.
METHODS
The elaboration of these guidelines followed the procedure validated by the French health authority for good practice recommendations, close to the Prisma statement. Guidelines were elaborated on the basis of a systematic and critical review of the literature.
RESULTS
Twenty-eight articles concerning 376 patients were analyzed. Recommendations are: when faced with an agitation crisis, the management strategy implies to search for an underlying factor that should be treated such as pain, acute sepsis, and drug adverse effect (expert opinion). Physical restraints should be discarded when possible (expert opinion). Neuroleptic agent with a marketing authorization can be used in order to obtain a quick sedation so as to protect the patient from himself, closed ones or the healthcare team but the duration should be as short as possible (expert opinion). The efficacy of beta-blockers and antiepileptics with mood regulation effects like carbamazepine and valproate yield the most compelling evidence and should be preferably used when a background regimen is envisioned (grade B for beta-blocker and C for antiepileptics). Neuroleptics, antidepressants, benzodiazepines, buspirone may be prescribed but are considered second-line treatments (expert opinion).
CONCLUSION
This study provides a strategy for treating the agitation crisis based on scientific data and expert opinion. The level of evidence remains low and published data are often old. New studies are essential to validate results from previous studies and test new drugs and non-pharmaceutical therapies.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Aggression; Amantadine; Anti-Anxiety Agents; Anticonvulsants; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Brain Injuries; Buspirone; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Dopamine Agents; Humans; Methylphenidate; Psychomotor Agitation; Restraint, Physical
PubMed: 26700025
DOI: 10.1016/j.rehab.2015.11.001 -
Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation... Feb 2016There are no handbook or recommendations for the use of pharmacological agents to treat neurobehavioral disorders after traumatic brain injury (TBI). This work proposes... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
There are no handbook or recommendations for the use of pharmacological agents to treat neurobehavioral disorders after traumatic brain injury (TBI). This work proposes a systematic review of the literature and a user guide on neuroleptics, antidepressants, beta-blockers, mood stabilizers and other medications for irritability, aggressiveness, agitation, impulsivity, depression, apathy…
METHOD
Steering, working and reading groups (62 people) were formed under the control of the French High Authority for Health (HAS) in collaboration with the SOFMER scientific society (French Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine). Articles were searched by HAS officers in the Medline database from 1990 to 2012, crossing TBI and pharmacological agents. The HAS method to select, read and analyze papers is close to the PRISMA statements.
RESULTS
Out of 772 references, 89 were analyzed, covering a total of 1306 people with TBI. There is insufficient evidence to standardize drug treatments for these disorders. There are however some elements to establish consensus recommendations for good clinical practice. Propranolol can improve aggression (B grade). Carbamazepine and valproate seem effective on agitation and aggression and are recommended as first line treatment (Expert Consensus [EC]). There is no evidence of efficacy for neuroleptics. Their prescription is based on emergency situation for a crisis (loxapine) but not for long-term use (EC). Antidepressants are recommended to treat depression (EC) with a higher standard of proof for Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI, grade B). Other products are described.
CONCLUSION
The choice of treatment depends on the level of evidence, target symptoms, custom objectives, clinical experience and caution strategies.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Amantadine; Anticonvulsants; Antidepressive Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Brain Injuries; Consensus; Dopamine Agents; Evidence-Based Medicine; France; Humans; Mental Disorders
PubMed: 26797170
DOI: 10.1016/j.rehab.2015.10.003 -
Health Technology Assessment... Nov 2009To evaluate the clinical effectiveness (including adverse events) and cost-effectiveness of antivirals for the treatment of naturally acquired influenza for 'at-risk'... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the clinical effectiveness (including adverse events) and cost-effectiveness of antivirals for the treatment of naturally acquired influenza for 'at-risk' and otherwise healthy populations.
DATA SOURCES
Eleven electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Pascal, Science Citation Index, BIOSIS, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Health Technology Assessment Database) were searched from October 2001 to November 2007. A supplementary search was undertaken in June 2008 for information relating to drug resistance during the 2007-8 influenza season.
REVIEW METHODS
Systematic reviews of the evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antivirals for the treatment of influenza were undertaken. Twenty-nine randomised controlled trials comparing antivirals with each other, placebo, or best symptomatic care were included in the evaluation of clinical effectiveness in patients presenting with an influenza-like illness (ILI). Primary outcomes were measures of symptom duration (median time to alleviation of symptoms and median time to return to normal activity). Incidence of complications, mortality, hospitalisations, antibiotic use (as a surrogate for complications) and adverse events was also assessed. In addition, an independent decision model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of antiviral treatment from the perspective of the UK NHS.
RESULTS
Amantadine was excluded at an early stage, owing to a lack of any new trials that met the inclusion criteria and the limitations of the existing evidence. The review therefore focused on the neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) oseltamivir and zanamivir, both of which were found to be effective in reducing symptom duration (zanamavir by 0.5-1.0 days and oseltamivir by 0.5-1.5 days). However, the effect sizes were often small and unlikely to be clinically significant in many cases, particularly in healthy adults. For the at-risk subgroups, effect sizes for differences in symptom duration were generally larger, and potentially more clinically significant, than those seen in healthy adults (median duration of symptoms reduced by 1-2 days with zanamivir and 0.50-0.75 days with oseltamivir). However, there was greater uncertainty around these results, with estimates often failing to reach statistical significance. The most consistent data and strongest evidence related to antibiotic use, with both zanamivir and oseltamivir resulting in statistically significant reductions in antibiotic use. In general, the estimates from the cost-effectiveness model were more favourable in at-risk populations (including adults and children with comorbid conditions and the elderly) compared with otherwise healthy populations. Zanamivir was the optimal NI treatment in each of the at-risk populations considered, and oseltamivir was optimal for healthy populations (both adults and children).
CONCLUSIONS
The clinical effectiveness data for population subgroups used to inform the multiparameter evidence synthesis and cost-effectiveness modelling were, in places, limited and this should be borne in mind when interpreting the findings of this review. Trials were often not designed to determine clinical effectiveness in population subgroups and hence, although the direction of effect was clear, estimates of differences in symptom duration tended to be subject to greater uncertainty in subgroups. Despite some concerns, the use of NIs in at-risk populations appeared to be a cost-effective approach for the treatment of influenza. Well-designed observational studies might also be considered to evaluate the clinical course of influenza in terms of complications, hospitalisation, mortality and quality of life, as well as the impact of NIs.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiviral Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Costs and Cost Analysis; Female; Humans; Influenza, Human; Male; Middle Aged; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 19954682
DOI: 10.3310/hta13580 -
Health Technology Assessment... 2000Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an important problem both for people with the disease and for society. There is no cure, and alleviation of symptoms forms the cornerstone of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an important problem both for people with the disease and for society. There is no cure, and alleviation of symptoms forms the cornerstone of care. Excessive fatigue that severely limits activity is experienced by at least two-thirds of the estimated 60,000 people with MS in the UK.
OBJECTIVES
(1) To identify current treatments for fatigue in MS and their evidence-base. (2) To systematically review the evidence for those treatments that have been investigated in more than one rigorous study, in order to determine their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.
METHODS
The review was carried out in two stages: a formal scoping review (to assess the range of interventions used by people with MS), and a systematic review for treatments that had been identified as promising and that had been investigated in clinical trials (as identified in the scoping review). A systematic review of research on costs and cost-effectiveness of those interventions identified as promising was also performed. Electronic databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, were searched for the period 1991-June 1999 (scoping review) and 1966-December 1999 (systematic review). Reference lists from publications were also searched, and experts were contacted for any additional information not already identified.
RESULTS
Interventions identified for the treatment of fatigue in MS (1) Behavioural advice. This is the main element of initial clinical management and no rigorous research of its effectiveness was identified. (2) Drugs (amantadine, pemoline, potassium-channel blockers and antidepressants). (3) Training, rehabilitation and devices (cooling vests and electromagnetic fields). (4) Alternative therapies (bee venom, cannabis, acupuncture/acupressure and yoga). Only two drugs, amantadine and pemoline, met the criteria for full systematic review. RESULTS - EFFECTIVENESS OF AMANTADINE: One parallel and three crossover trials were found, involving a total of 236 people with MS. All studies were open to bias. All studies showed a pattern in favour of amantadine compared with placebo, but there is considerable uncertainty about the validity and clinical significance of this finding. This pattern of benefit was considerably undermined when different assumptions were used in the sensitivity analysis. RESULTS - EFFECTIVENESS OF PEMOLINE: One parallel and one crossover trial were found involving a total of 126 people with MS. Both studies were open to bias. There was no overall tendency in favour of pemoline over placebo and an excess of reports of adverse effects with pemoline. RESULTS - HEALTH ECONOMIC ANALYSIS: The drug costs of amantadine and pemoline are modest (pound 200 and pound 80 per annum, respectively). No economic evaluations were identified in the systematic review, and available data were insufficient to allow modelling of cost-effectiveness in this rapid review.
CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to allow people with MS, clinicians or policy makers to make informed decisions on the appropriate use of the many treatments on offer. Only amantadine appears to have some proven ability to alleviate the fatigue in MS, though only a proportion of users will obtain benefit and then only some of these patients will benefit sufficiently to take the drug in the long term. CONCLUSIONS - RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESEARCH: The frequency, severity and impact of fatigue, the poverty of available research, and the absence of any ongoing research, suggest that new research is an urgent priority. People with MS, clinicians and policy makers should work together to ensure that the evidence required is collected as quickly as possible by encouraging involvement in rigorous research. Research should not be restricted to the two drugs reviewed in depth in this report. All interventions identified in the scoping review (see above) should be considered, as should basic scientific research into the underlying mechanism of fatigue in MS.
Topics: Amantadine; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Dopamine Agents; Evidence-Based Medicine; Fatigue; Humans; Multiple Sclerosis; Pemoline
PubMed: 11074395
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and... Mar 2016In palliative care patients, fatigue can be severely debilitating and is often not counteracted with rest, thereby impacting daily activity and quality of life. Further... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
In palliative care patients, fatigue can be severely debilitating and is often not counteracted with rest, thereby impacting daily activity and quality of life. Further complicating issues are the multidimensionality, subjective nature and lack of a consensus definition of fatigue. The review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of pharmacological treatments for fatigue in palliative care, with a focus on patients at an advanced stage of disease, including patients with cancer and other chronic diseases.
METHODS
We considered randomized controlled trials concerning adult palliative care with a focus on pharmacological treatment of fatigue compared with placebo, application of two drugs, usual care or a non-pharmacological intervention. The primary outcome had to be non-specific fatigue (or related terms such as asthenia). We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE, and a selection of cancer journals up to 28 April 2014. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted the data.
RESULTS
We screened 1645 publications of which 45 met the inclusion criteria. In total, we analysed data from 18 drugs and 4696 participants. There was a very high degree of statistical and clinical heterogeneity in the trials. Meta-analysis of data was possible for modafinil, pemoline, and methylphenidate.
CONCLUSIONS
Due to the limited evidence, we cannot recommend a specific drug for the treatment of fatigue in palliative care patients. Some drugs, which may be beneficial for the treatment of fatigue associated with palliative care such as amantadine, methylphenidate, and modafinil, should be further researched.
PubMed: 27066315
DOI: 10.1002/jcsm.12101 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Opioid-induced hyperalgesia (OIH) is an adverse event of prolonged opioid use that increases pain intensity. The optimal drug to prevent these adverse effects is still...
Opioid-induced hyperalgesia (OIH) is an adverse event of prolonged opioid use that increases pain intensity. The optimal drug to prevent these adverse effects is still unknown. We aimed to conduct a network meta-analysis to compare different pharmacological interventions for preventing the increase in postoperative pain intensity caused by OIH. Several databases were searched independently for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing various pharmacological interventions to prevent OIH. The primary outcomes were postoperative pain intensity at rest after 24 h and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Secondary outcomes included pain threshold at 24 h after surgery, total morphine consumption over 24 h, time to first postoperative analgesic requirement, and shivering incidence. In total, 33 RCTs with 1711 patients were identified. In terms of postoperative pain intensity, amantadine, magnesium sulphate, pregabalin, dexmedetomidine, ibuprofen, flurbiprofen plus dexmedetomidine, parecoxib, parecoxib plus dexmedetomidine, and S (+)-ketamine plus methadone were all associated with milder pain intensity than placebo, with amantadine being the most effective (SUCRA values = 96.2). Regarding PONV incidence, intervention with dexmedetomidine or flurbiprofen plus dexmedetomidine resulted in a lower incidence than placebo, with dexmedetomidine showing the best result (SUCRA values = 90.3). Amantadine was identified as the best in controlling postoperative pain intensity and non-inferior to placebo in the incidence of PONV. Dexmedetomidine was the only intervention that outperformed placebo in all indicators. https://www.crd.york.ac. uk/prospero/display_record.php?, CRD42021225361.
PubMed: 37426819
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1199794 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2014Pegylated interferon (peginterferon) plus ribavirin is the recommended treatment for patients with chronic hepatitis C, but systematic assessment of the effect of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pegylated interferon (peginterferon) plus ribavirin is the recommended treatment for patients with chronic hepatitis C, but systematic assessment of the effect of this treatment compared with interferon plus ribavirin is needed.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically evaluate the benefits and harms of peginterferon plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin for patients with chronic hepatitis C.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index-Expanded, and LILACS. We also searched conference abstracts, journals, and grey literature. The last searches were conducted in September 2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised clinical trials comparing peginterferon plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin with or without co-intervention(s) (e.g., other antiviral drugs) for chronic hepatitis C. Quasi-randomised and observational studies retrieved through the searches for randomised clinical trials were also considered for reports of harms. Our primary outcomes were liver-related morbidity, all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation, other adverse events, and quality of life. Our secondary outcome was sustained virological response in serum, that is, undetectable hepatitis C virus RNA in serum by sensitive tests six months after the end of treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently used a standardised data collection form. We meta-analysed data with both fixed-effect and random-effects models. For each outcome, we calculated the odds ratio (OR) (for liver-related morbidity or all-cause mortality) or the risk ratio (RR) along with 95% confidence interval (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis. We used domains of the trials to assess the risk of systematic errors (bias) and trial sequential analyses to assess the risk of random errors (play of chance).For each outcome, we calculated the RR with 95% CI based on intention-to-treat analysis. Effects of interventions on outcomes were assessed according to GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 27 randomised trials with 5938 participants. All trials had high risk of bias. We considered that the risk of bias did not impact on the quality of evidence for liver-related mortality and adverse event outcomes, but it did for virological response. All trials compared peginterferon alpha-2a or peginterferon alpha-2b plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin for participants with chronic hepatitis C. Three trials administered co-interventions (amantadine hydrochloride 200 mg daily to both intervention groups), and 24 trials were conducted without co-interventions. The effect observed between the two intervention groups regarding liver-related morbidity plus all-cause mortality (5/907 (0.55%) versus 4/882 (0.45%) was imprecise: OR 1.14 ( 95% CI 0.38 to 3.42; five trials; low quality of evidence), as was the risk of adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (332/2692 (12.3%) versus 409/2176 (18.8%); RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; 15 trials; low quality of evidence) or regarding adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (332/2692 (12.3%) versus 409/2176 (18.8%); RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.12; 17 trials; low quality of evidence). However, peginterferon plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin significantly increased the risk of neutropenia (332/2202 (15.1%) versus 117/1653 (7.1%); RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.76 to 2.61; 13 trials), thrombocytopenia (65/1113 (5.8%) versus 23/1082 (2.1%); RR 2.63, 95% CI 1.68 to 4.11; 10 trials), arthralgia (517/1740 (29.7%) versus 282/1194 (23.6%); RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.35; four trials), injection site reaction (627/1168 (53.7%) versus 186/649 (28.7%); RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.50 to 1.93; four trials), and nausea (606/1784 (34.0%) versus 354/1239 (28.6%); RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.26; four trials). The most frequent adverse event was fatigue, which occurred in 57% of participants (2024/3608). No significant difference was noted between peginterferon plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin in terms of fatigue (1177/2062 (57.1%) versus 847/1546 (54.8%); RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.07; 12 trials). No significant differences were reported between the two treatment groups regarding anaemia, headache, rigours, myalgia, pyrexia, weight loss, asthenia, depression, insomnia, irritability, alopecia, pruritus, skin rash, thyroid malfunction, decreased appetite, or diarrhoea. We were unable to identify any data on quality of life. Peginterferon plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin seemed to significantly increase the number of participants achieving sustained virological response (1673/3300 participants (50.7%) versus 1081/2804 patients (36.7%); RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.56; I2 = 64%; 27 trials; very low quality of evidence). However, the risk of bias in the 13/27 (48.1%) trials reporting on this outcome was high and was considered only 'lower' in the remainder. Because the conventional meta-analysis did not reach its required information size (n = 14,486 participants), we used trial sequential analysis to control for risks of random errors. Again, in this analysis, the estimated effect was statistically significant in favour of peginterferon. Subgroup analyses according to risk of bias, viral genotype, baseline viral load, past treatment history, and type of intervention yielded similarly significant results favouring peginterferon over interferon on the outcome of sustained virological response.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Peginterferon plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin seems to significantly increase the proportion of patients with sustained virological response, as well as the risk of certain adverse events. However, we have insufficient evidence to recommend or reject peginterferon plus ribavirin for liver-related morbidity plus all-cause mortality compared with interferon plus ribavirin. The clinical consequences of achieved sustained virological response are unknown, as sustained virological response is still an unvalidated surrogate outcome. We found no evidence of the potential benefits on quality of life in patients with achieved sustained virological response. Further high-quality research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of patient-relevant outcomes and is likely to change our estimates.There is very low quality evidence that peginterferon plus ribavirin increases the proportion of patients with sustained virological response in comparison with interferon plus ribavirin. There is evidence that it also increases the risk of certain adverse events.
Topics: Amantadine; Antiviral Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Humans; Interferon alpha-2; Interferon-alpha; Interferons; Polyethylene Glycols; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recombinant Proteins; Ribavirin
PubMed: 24585509
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005441.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2014Cognitive deficits are common in people who have received cranial irradiation and have a serious impact on daily functioning and quality of life. The benefit of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cognitive deficits are common in people who have received cranial irradiation and have a serious impact on daily functioning and quality of life. The benefit of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of cognitive deficits in this population is unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of interventions for preventing or ameliorating cognitive deficits in adult patients treated with cranial irradiation.
SEARCH METHODS
In August 2014. we searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO and checked the reference lists of included studies. We also searched for ongoing trials via ClinicalTrials.gov, the Physicians Data Query and the Meta Register of Controlled Trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions in cranial irradiated adults, with objective cognitive functioning as a primary or secondary outcome measure.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (JD, KZ) independently extracted data from selected studies and carried out a 'Risk of bias' assessment. Cognitive function, fatigue and mood outcomes were reported. No data were pooled.
MAIN RESULTS
Sixteen studies were identified for possible inclusion in the review, six of which were included. Three studies investigated prevention and three studies investigated amelioration. Due to differences between studies in the interventions being evaluated, a meta-analysis was not possible. Two studies investigated a pharmacological intervention for the prevention of cognitive deficits; memantine compared with placebo, and d-threo-methylphenidate HCL compared with placebo. In the first study the primary cognitive outcome of memory at six months did not reach significance, but there was significant improvement in overall cognitive function compared to placebo, with similar adverse events across groups. The second study found no statistically significant difference between arms, with few adverse events. The third study investigated a rehabilitation program for the prevention of cognitive deficits but did not carry out a statistical comparison of cognitive performance between groups.Three studies investigated the use of a pharmacological intervention for the treatment of cognitive deficits; methylphenidate compared with modafinil, two different doses of modafinil, and donepezil compared with placebo. The first study found improvements in cognitive function in both the methylphenidate and modafinil arms; few adverse events were reported. The second study combined treatment arms and found improvements across all cognitive tests, however, a number of adverse events were reported. Both studies were limited by a small sample size. The third study did not find an improvement in the primary cognitive outcome of overall performance, but did find improvement in an individual test of memory, compared to placebo; adverse events were not reported. No non-pharmacological studies for the amelioration of cognitive deficits were eligible. There were a number of limitations across studies but few without high risks of bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is supportive evidence that memantine may help prevent cognitive deficits for adults with brain metastases receiving cranial irradiation. There is supportive evidence that donepezil may have a role in treating cognitive deficits in adults with primary or metastatic brain tumours who have been treated with cranial irradiation. Patient withdrawal affected the statistical power of both studies. Further research that tries to minimise the withdrawal of consent, and subsequently reduce the requirement for imputation procedures, may offer a higher quality of evidence.There is no strong evidence to support any non-pharmacological interventions (medical or cognitive/behavioural) in the prevention or amelioration of cognitive deficits. Non-randomised studies appear promising but are as yet to be conclusive via translation into high quality evidence. Further research is required.
Topics: Adult; Benzhydryl Compounds; Cognition Disorders; Cranial Irradiation; Donepezil; Humans; Indans; Memantine; Methylphenidate; Modafinil; Nootropic Agents; Piperidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25519950
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011335.pub2