-
Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology =... Oct 2013Depression complicates interferon-based hepatitis C virus (HCV) antiviral therapy in 10% to 40% of cases, and diminishes patient well-being and ability to complete a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Antidepressant prophylaxis reduces depression risk but does not improve sustained virological response in hepatitis C interferon recipients without depression at baseline: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Depression complicates interferon-based hepatitis C virus (HCV) antiviral therapy in 10% to 40% of cases, and diminishes patient well-being and ability to complete a full course of therapy. As a consequence, the likelihood of achieving a sustained virological response (SVR [ie, permanent viral eradication]) is reduced.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the evidence of whether pre-emptive antidepressant prophylaxis started before HCV antiviral initiation is beneficial.
METHODS
Inclusion was restricted to randomized controlled trials in which prophylactic antidepressant therapy was started at least two weeks before the initiation of HCV antiviral treatment. Studies pertaining to patients with active or recent depressive symptoms before commencing HCV antiviral therapy were excluded. English language articles from 1946 to July 2012 were included. The MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central databases were searched. Where possible, meta-analyses were conducted evaluating the effect of antidepressant prophylaxis on SVR and major depression as well as on Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale and Beck Depression Index scores at four, 12 and 24 weeks. The Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to assess bias risk.
RESULTS
Six randomized clinical trials involving 522 patients met the inclusion criteria. Although the frequency of on-treatment clinical depression was decreased with antidepressant prophylaxis (risk ratio 0.60 [95% CI 0.38 to 0.93]; P=0.02; I2=24%), no benefit to SVR was identified (risk ratio 1.08 [95% CI 0.74 to 1.57]; P=0.69; I2=58%).
CONCLUSION
This practice is not justified to improve SVR in populations free of active depressive symptoms leading up to HCV antiviral therapy.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Antiviral Agents; Depressive Disorder; Hepacivirus; Hepatitis C; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Humans; Interferons; Risk
PubMed: 24106729
DOI: 10.1155/2013/832689 -
BMC Medicine Dec 2009Individual strategies in pandemic preparedness plans may not reduce the impact of an influenza pandemic. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Individual strategies in pandemic preparedness plans may not reduce the impact of an influenza pandemic.
METHODS
We searched modeling publications through PubMed and associated references from 1990 to 30 September 2009. Inclusion criteria were modeling papers quantifying the effectiveness of combination strategies, both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical.
RESULTS
Nineteen modeling papers on combination strategies were selected. Four studies examined combination strategies on a global scale, 14 on single countries, and one on a small community. Stochastic individual-based modeling was used in nine studies, stochastic meta-population modeling in five, and deterministic compartmental modeling in another five. As part of combination strategies, vaccination was explored in eight studies, antiviral prophylaxis and/or treatment in 16, area or household quarantine in eight, case isolation in six, social distancing measures in 10 and air travel restriction in six studies. Two studies suggested a high probability of successful influenza epicenter containment with combination strategies under favorable conditions. During a pandemic, combination strategies delayed spread, reduced overall number of cases, and delayed and reduced peak attack rate more than individual strategies. Combination strategies remained effective at high reproductive numbers compared with single strategy. Global cooperative strategies, including redistribution of antiviral drugs, were effective in reducing the global impact and attack rates of pandemic influenza.
CONCLUSION
Combination strategies increase the effectiveness of individual strategies. They include pharmaceutical (antiviral agents, antibiotics and vaccines) and non-pharmaceutical interventions (case isolation, quarantine, personal hygiene measures, social distancing and travel restriction). Local epidemiological and modeling studies are needed to validate efficacy and feasibility.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antiviral Agents; Disease Outbreaks; Humans; Hygiene; Influenza, Human; Mass Vaccination; Models, Theoretical; Quarantine
PubMed: 20003249
DOI: 10.1186/1741-7015-7-76 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2015This is an updated version of a review first published in theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 4, in 2011. Vulval intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN) is a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of a review first published in theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 4, in 2011. Vulval intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN) is a pre-cancerous condition of the vulval skin and its incidence is increasing in women under 50 years. High-grade VIN (also called usual-type VIN (uVIN) or VIN 2/3 or high-grade vulval intraepithelial lesion) is associated with human papilloma virus (HPV) infection and may progress to vulval cancer, therefore is usually actively managed. There is no consensus on the optimal management of high-grade VIN; and the high morbidity and relapse rates associated with surgical interventions make less invasive interventions highly desirable.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of medical (non-surgical) interventions for high-grade VIN.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE and EMBASE (up to 30 March 2015). We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed non-surgical interventions in women diagnosed with high-grade VIN.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used Cochrane methodology with two review authors independently abstracting data and assessing risk of bias. Where possible, we synthesised data in meta-analyses using random effects methods.
MAIN RESULTS
Five trials involving 297 women with high-grade VIN (defined by trial investigators as VIN 2/3 or VIN 3 or 'high-grade' lesions) met our inclusion criteria: three trials assessed the effectiveness of topical imiquimod versus placebo; one assessed topical cidofovir versus topical imiquimod; and one assessed low- versus high-dose indole-3-carbinol in similar types of participants. Three trials were at a moderate to low risk of bias, two were at a potentially high risk of bias.Meta-analysis of the three trials comparing topical imiquimod 5% cream to placebo found that women in the active treatment group were more likely to show an overall response (complete and partial response) to treatment at five to six months compared with the placebo group (Risk Ratio (RR) 11.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.21 to 44.51; participants = 104; studies = 3; I(2) = 0%; high-quality evidence). A complete response at five to six months occurred in 36/62 (58%) and 0/42 (0%) participants in the active and placebo groups, respectively (RR 14.40, 95% CI 2.97 to 69.80; participants = 104; studies = 3; I(2) = 0%). A single trial reported 12-month follow-up, which revealed a sustained effect in overall response in favour of the active treatment arm at 12 months (RR 9.10, 95% CI 2.38 to 34.77; moderate-quality evidence), with 9/24 (38%) and 0/23 (0%) complete responses recorded in the active and placebo groups respectively. Progression to vulval cancer was also documented in this trial (one versus two participants in the active and placebo groups, respectively) and we assessed this evidence as low-quality. Only one trial reported adverse events, including erythema, erosion, pain and pruritis at the site of the lesion, which were more common in the imiquimod group. Dose reductions occurred more frequently in the active treatment group compared with the placebo group (19/47 versus 1/36 participants; RR 7.77, 95% CI 1.61 to 37.36; participants = 83; studies = 2; I(2) = 0%; high-quality evidence). Only one trial reported quality of life (QoL) and there were no significant differences between the imiquimod and placebo groups.For the imiquimod versus cidofovir trial, 180 women contributed data. The overall response at six months was similar for the imiquimod and cidofovir treatment groups with 52/91 (57%) versus 55/89 (62%) participants responding, respectively (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.18). A complete response occurred in 41 women in each group (45% and 46%, respectively; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.37). Although not statistically different, total adverse events were slightly more common in the imiquimod group of this trial with slightly more discontinuations occurring in this group. Longer term response data from this trial are expected.The small trial comparing two doses of indole-3-carbinol contributed limited data. We identified five ongoing randomised trials of various interventions for VIN.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Topical imiquimod appears to be a safe and effective treatment for high-grade VIN (uVIN), even though local side-effects may necessitate dose reductions. However, longer term follow-up data are needed to corroborate the limited evidence that response to treatment is sustained, and to assess any effect on progression to vulval cancer. Available evidence suggests that topical cidofovir may be a good alternative to imiquimod; however, more evidence is needed, particularly regarding the relative effectiveness on longer term response and progression. We await the longer-term response data and the results of the five ongoing trials.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Adult; Aminoquinolines; Anticarcinogenic Agents; Antineoplastic Agents; Carcinoma in Situ; Cidofovir; Cytosine; Female; Humans; Imiquimod; Indoles; Organophosphonates; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vulvar Neoplasms
PubMed: 26284429
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007924.pub3 -
Clinical Gastroenterology and... Mar 2017Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are effective in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, although results for patients infected with genotype 3 are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are effective in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, although results for patients infected with genotype 3 are suboptimal. There are several regimens available, however, direct comparisons have not been made and are unlikely to occur. We aimed to identify the most effective DAA regimen for patients infected with HCV genotype 3 and to assess the role of ribavirin.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases through March 2016. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis using a random-effects model to indirectly compare regimens in patients with and without cirrhosis. We calculated mean estimated sustained virologic response (SVR) with 95% credible intervals (95% CrI) per regimen and effect of ribavirin as odds ratio. We focused on current recommended regimens and regimens under evaluation by regulatory authorities.
RESULTS
Our search identified 2167 articles; 27 studies (comprising 3415 patients) were included. Among patients without cirrhosis, the greatest rates of SVR were estimated for those receiving sofosbuvir + velpatasvir with ribavirin (99%; 95% CrI, 98%-100%) and without ribavirin (97%; 95% CrI, 95%-99%), sofosbuvir + daclatasvir + ribavirin (96%; 95% CrI, 92%-98%), and sofosbuvir + peginterferon + ribavirin (95%; 95% CrI, 91%-98%), all for 12 weeks. Among patients with cirrhosis, the highest rates of SVR were estimated for those receiving sofosbuvir + velpatasvir for 24 weeks (96%; 95% CrI, 92%-99%), sofosbuvir + daclatasvir + ribavirin for 24 weeks (94%; 95% CrI, 87%-98%), and sofosbuvir + velpatasvir + ribavirin for 12 weeks (94%; 95% CrI, 86%-98%). Ribavirin increases efficacy in patients with and without cirrhosis (odds ratio, 2.6-4.5).
CONCLUSIONS
An indirect comparison of DAA-based treatments, using Bayesian network meta-analysis, found regimens containing sofosbuvir and velpatasvir to be the best option for patients with HCV genotype 3 infection. Our analyses indicated that ribavirin significantly increases SVR rates and should be considered if tolerated.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Genotype; Hepacivirus; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27840182
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.10.034 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2014Hepatitis C infection is a disease of the liver caused by the hepatitis C virus. The estimated number of chronically infected people with hepatitis C virus worldwide is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Hepatitis C infection is a disease of the liver caused by the hepatitis C virus. The estimated number of chronically infected people with hepatitis C virus worldwide is about 150 million people. Every year, another three to four million people acquire the infection. Chronic hepatitis C is a leading cause of liver-related mortality and morbidity. It is estimated that around 5% to 20% of people with the infection will develop liver cirrhosis, which increases the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma and liver failure. Until 2011, the combination therapy of pegylated interferon-alpha (peginterferon) and ribavirin was the approved standard treatment for chronic hepatitis C. In 2011, first-generation direct-acting antivirals have been licensed, for use in combination with peginterferon and ribavirin for treating hepatitis C virus genotype 1 infection. Nitazoxanide is another antiviral drug with broad antiviral activity and may have potential as an effective alternative, or an addition to standard treatment for the treatment of the hepatitis C virus.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of nitazoxanide in people with chronic hepatitis C virus infection.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (last searched April 2013), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 3), MEDLINE (Ovid SP, 1948 to April 2013), EMBASE (Ovid SP, 1980 to April 2013), LILACS (1983 to April 2013), and Science Citation Index EXPANDED (ISI Web of Knowledge, 1900 to April 2013), using the search strategies and the expected time spans. We also scanned reference lists of identified studies.We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal for registered trials, either completed or ongoing (April 2013).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised clinical trials that examined the effects of nitazoxanide versus placebo, no intervention, or any other intervention in patients with chronic hepatitis C. We considered any co-intervention, including standard treatment, if delivered to all intervention groups of the randomised trial concerned.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors extracted data independently. We assessed the risk of systematic errors ('bias') by evaluation of bias risk domains. We used Review Manager 5.2 for the statistical analyses of dichotomous outcome data with risk ratio (RR) and of continuous outcome data with mean difference (MD). For meta-analyses, we used a fixed-effect model and a random-effects model, along with an assessment of heterogeneity. We assessed risk of random errors ('play of chance') using trial sequential analysis. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to present review results in 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven randomised clinical trials with a total of 538 participants with chronic hepatitis C. Participants were 18 years of age or older, all diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 or 4. All of the trials had a high risk of bias. All of the trials compared nitazoxanide with placebo or no intervention, and six out of seven of the trials included different antiviral co-interventions administered equally to all intervention groups. Only one trial, comparing nitazoxanide plus peginterferon and ribavirin versus no intervention plus peginterferon and ribavirin, provided information that there were no deaths due to any cause or due to chronic hepatitis C (100 participants, very low quality evidence). The relative effect of nitazoxanide versus placebo or no intervention on adverse events was uncertain (37 out of 179 (21%) versus 30 out of 152 (20%); RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.71; I(2) = 65%; four trials; very low quality evidence). Nitazoxanide decreased the risk of failure to achieve sustained virological response when compared with placebo or no intervention (159 out of 290 (55%) versus 133 out of 208 (64%); RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.75 to 0.97; I(2) = 0%; seven trials; low quality evidence) and also the risk of failure to achieve virological end-of-treatment response (125 out of 290 (43%) versus 110 out of 208 (53%); RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.96; I(2) = 46%; seven trials; low quality evidence). Trial sequential analysis supported the meta-analysis result for sustained virological response, but not the meta-analysis for virological end-of-treatment response. Meta-analysis also showed that nitazoxanide did not decrease the number of participants who showed no improvement in alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase serum levels when compared with placebo or no intervention (52 out of 97 (54%) versus 47 out of 95 (49%); RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.42; I(2) = 0%; three trials; very low quality evidence). None of the included trials assessed the effects of nitazoxanide on morbidity or on quality of life. Histological changes were only reported on a subset of three participants out of thirteen participants included in a long term-follow-up trial.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found very low quality, or no, evidence on nitazoxanide for clinically- or patient-relevant outcomes, such as all-cause mortality, chronic hepatitis C-related mortality, morbidity, and adverse events in participants with chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 or 4 infection. Our results of no improvement in alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase serum levels were also uncertain. No conclusion could be drawn about liver histology because of a lack of data. Our results indicate that nitazoxanide might have an effect on sustained virological response and virological end-of-treatment response. However, both results could be influenced by systematic errors because all the trials included in the review had a high risk of bias. Furthermore, only the beneficial effect on number of participants achieving sustained virological response was supported when we applied trial sequential analysis. The results on virological end-of-treatment response might, therefore, be caused by a random error. We totally lack information on the effects of nitazoxanide in participants with chronic hepatitis C genotypes 2 or 3 infection. More randomised clinical trials with a low risk of bias are needed to assess the effects of nitazoxanide for chronic hepatitis C.
Topics: Adult; Alanine Transaminase; Antiviral Agents; Aspartate Aminotransferases; Cause of Death; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Humans; Nitro Compounds; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thiazoles
PubMed: 24706397
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009182.pub2 -
Medicine Dec 2016The estimated hepatitis C virus (HCV) carriers are approximately 10 million in Pakistan which usually progresses to chronic hepatitis, with rare cases of spontaneous... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The estimated hepatitis C virus (HCV) carriers are approximately 10 million in Pakistan which usually progresses to chronic hepatitis, with rare cases of spontaneous viral eradication. The present article reviews the treatment status of HCV infection in Pakistani population and various factors associated with the treatment response rates.
METHODS
Literature on anti-HCV therapy was searched in PubMed, Google Scholar and PakMediNet. Thirty three different studies representing different geographic regions of Pakistan published from 2002 to 2016 were included in the present review. Weighted mean, standard error estimates (SE) and standard deviation (SD) were determined for each population group.
RESULTS
Mean value for sustained virological response (SVR) for standard IFN plus ribavirin (RBV) combination therapy was 68.38% ± 14.13% (range 33.8%-87.10%; SE 3.08) and pegylated-IFN plus RBV combination therapy 64.38% ± 8.68% (range 55.0%-76.00%; SE 3.88). The lowest value for SVR has been reported to be 24.3% (for genotype 1; administering INF-α 2b 3MU 3 times/week and RBV 1000-1200 mg/day for 48 weeks) while highest of 87.5% (genotype 3a; INF-α 2a 3MU 3 times/week and RBV 1000-1200 mg/day for 24 weeks). The mean value for rapid virological response (RVR) was found to be 48.18% ± 29.20% (SE 9.73). As PEG-interferon and direct acting antivirals (DAAs) are relatively expensive, interferon-alfa (IFN-α) and RBV combination therapy have been used widely to treat HCV infected patients in Pakistan for the last one and half decade. On average, 2.45% of the patients discontinued treatment due to severe side effects.
CONCLUSION
We encourage further studies on understanding host and viral factors associated with specific focus on harder to treat viral variants (relapsers and nonresponders). These variants are currently rising in the country.
Topics: Adult; Antiviral Agents; Disease Management; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Hepacivirus; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Humans; Interferon-alpha; Male; Middle Aged; Pakistan; Prevalence; Ribavirin; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27977575
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000005327 -
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 -
International Journal of Molecular... Nov 2021The unprecedented successes of immunotherapies (IOs) including immune checkpoint blockers (ICBs) and adoptive T-cell therapy (ACT) in patients with late-stage cancer...
The unprecedented successes of immunotherapies (IOs) including immune checkpoint blockers (ICBs) and adoptive T-cell therapy (ACT) in patients with late-stage cancer provide proof-of-principle evidence that harnessing the immune system, in particular T cells, can be an effective approach to eradicate cancer. This instills strong interests in understanding the immunomodulatory effects of radiotherapy (RT), an area that was actually investigated more than a century ago but had been largely ignored for many decades. With the "newly" discovered immunogenic responses from RT, numerous endeavors have been undertaken to combine RT with IOs, in order to bolster anti-tumor immunity. However, the underlying mechanisms are not well defined, which is a subject of much investigation. We therefore conducted a systematic literature search on the molecular underpinnings of RT-induced immunomodulation and IOs, which identified the IFN-JAK-STAT pathway as a major regulator. Our further analysis of relevant studies revealed that the signaling strength and duration of this pathway in response to RT and IOs may determine eventual immunological outcomes. We propose that strategic targeting of this axis can boost the immunostimulatory effects of RT and radiosensitizing effects of IOs, thereby promoting the efficacy of combination therapy of RT and IOs.
Topics: Combined Modality Therapy; Humans; Immunotherapy; Interferons; Janus Kinases; Neoplasms; Radiotherapy; STAT Transcription Factors; Signal Transduction; T-Lymphocytes
PubMed: 34830176
DOI: 10.3390/ijms222212295 -
BMJ Open Apr 2021Respiratory infectious disease outbreaks pose a threat for loss of life, economic instability and social disruption. We conducted a systematic review of published...
OBJECTIVES
Respiratory infectious disease outbreaks pose a threat for loss of life, economic instability and social disruption. We conducted a systematic review of published econometric analyses to assess the direct and indirect costs of infectious respiratory disease outbreaks that occurred between 2003 and 2019.
SETTING
Respiratory infectious disease outbreaks or public health preparedness measures or interventions responding to respiratory outbreaks in OECD countries (excluding South Korea and Japan) so as to assess studies relevant to the European context. The cost-effectiveness of interventions was assessed through a dominance ranking matrix approach. All cost data were adjusted to the 2017 Euro, with interventions compared with the null. We included data from 17 econometric studies.
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES
Direct and indirect costs for disease and preparedness and/or response or cost-benefit and cost-utility were measured.
RESULTS
Overall, the economic burden of infectious respiratory disease outbreaks was found to be significant to healthcare systems and society. Indirect costs were greater than direct costs mainly due to losses of productivity. With regard to non-pharmaceutical strategies, prehospitalisation screening and the use of protective masks were identified as both an effective strategy and cost-saving. Community contact reduction was effective but had ambiguous results for cost saving. School closure was an effective measure, but not cost-saving in the long term. Targeted antiviral prophylaxis was the most cost-saving and effective pharmaceutical intervention.
CONCLUSIONS
Our cost analysis results provide evidence to policymakers on the cost-effectiveness of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical intervention strategies which may be applied to mitigate or respond to infectious respiratory disease outbreaks.
Topics: Civil Defense; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Disease Outbreaks; Humans; Japan; Republic of Korea
PubMed: 33926982
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045113 -
The Journal of Infectious Diseases Aug 2023This study aims to comparatively analyze clinical features, treatment, and patient outcomes between the previous and the 2022 mpox (monkeypox) outbreaks. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This study aims to comparatively analyze clinical features, treatment, and patient outcomes between the previous and the 2022 mpox (monkeypox) outbreaks.
METHODS
Five bibliographic databases were searched for studies reporting clinical features, management, and patient outcomes of mpox. Systematic review and meta-analysis were performed.
RESULTS
In total, 73 studies were included in the systematic review, of which 33 studies were subjected to meta-analysis. Previous outbreaks substantially affected children, whereas the 2022 outbreak primarily affected male adults, of which 94.66% (95% confidence interval [CI], 88.03-98.95) were men who have sex with men. Furthermore, 72.47% (95% CI, 51.04-89.71) reported high-risk sexual activity and the overall human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevalence was 37.65% (95% CI, 30.09-45.50). Skin lesions remain the typical symptom; however, their anatomic distribution differed. Systemic manifestations were common, but rectal pain was unique to the 2022 outbreak. The estimated overall fatality during past outbreaks in Africa was 4.61% (95% CI, 2.39%-7.35%), whereas 6.34% (95% CI, 3.35%-10.10%) of patients from the 2022 outbreak required hospitalization. Antiviral treatment, in particular tecovirimat, has been prescribed for a subset of patients, but the efficacy remains inconclusive.
CONCLUSIONS
These findings are important for better understanding the disease and guiding adequate response to mpox outbreaks.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Male; Female; Homosexuality, Male; Mpox (monkeypox); Sexual and Gender Minorities; Antiviral Agents; Disease Outbreaks; Pelvic Pain
PubMed: 36735342
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiad034