-
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics May 2009No consensus is available on the optimal initial treatment in Wilson disease. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
No consensus is available on the optimal initial treatment in Wilson disease.
AIM
To assess systematically the available literature of treatment in newly presenting patients with a presymptomatic, hepatic or neurological presentation of Wilson disease.
METHODS
A systematic literature search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE databases was performed. Original studies on clinical efficacy of D-penicillamine, trientine, tetrathiomolybdate or zinc monotherapy as initial treatment in Wilson disease were included. A descriptive analysis of the relevant published data was performed.
RESULTS
One randomized trial and 12 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. These studies were quite heterogeneous and generally of low validity. Nevertheless, according to currently available data, patients with hepatic presentation of Wilson disease are probably most effectively treated by D-penicillamine. Zinc seems to be preferred above d-penicillamine for treatment of presymptomatic and neurological patients, as in these subgroups, the tolerance profile is in favour of zinc, while no obvious differences in clinical efficacy could be observed.
CONCLUSIONS
There is lack of high-quality evidence to estimate the relative treatment effects of the available drugs in Wilson disease. Therefore, multicentre prospective randomized controlled comparative trials are necessary.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Chelating Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Female; Hepatolenticular Degeneration; Humans; Infant; Male; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Trace Elements; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult; Zinc
PubMed: 19210288
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2009.03959.x -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2014Methotrexate is a folic acid antagonist widely used for the treatment of neoplastic disorders. Methotrexate inhibits the synthesis of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA),... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Methotrexate is a folic acid antagonist widely used for the treatment of neoplastic disorders. Methotrexate inhibits the synthesis of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), ribonucleic acid (RNA) and proteins by binding to dihydrofolate reductase. Currently, methotrexate is among the most commonly used drugs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This is an update of the previous Cochrane systematic review published in 1997.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate short term benefits and harms of methotrexate for treating RA compared to placebo.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from 1966 to 1997 and then updated to November 2013. The search was complemented with a bibliography search of the reference lists of trials retrieved from the electronic search.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials comparing methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy against placebo alone in people with RA. Any trial duration and MTX doses were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently determined which studies were eligible for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes were pooled using mean differences (MDs) for continuous variables or standardized mean differences (SMDs) when different scales were used to measure the same outcome. Pooled risk ratio (RR) was used for dichotomous variables. Fixed-effect models were used throughout, although random-effects models were used for outcomes showing heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS
Five trials with 300 patients were included in the original version of the review. An additional two trials with 432 patients were added to the 2013 update of the review for a total of 732 participants. The trials were generally of unclear to low risk of bias with a follow-up duration ranging from 12 to 52 weeks. All trials included patients who have failed prior treatment (for example, gold therapy, D-penicillamine, azathioprine or anti-malarials); mean disease duration that ranged between 1 and 14 years with six trials reporting more than 4 years; and weekly doses that ranged between 5 mg and 25 mg.
BENEFITS
Statistically significant and clinically important differences were observed for most efficacy outcomes. MTX monotherapy showed a clinically important and statistically significant improvement in the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 response rate when compared with placebo at 52 weeks (RR 3.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.5 to 6.0; number needed to treat (NNT) 7, 95% CI 4 to 22). Fifteen more patients out of 100 had a major improvement in the ACR 50 outcome compared to placebo (absolute treatment benefit (ATB) 15%, 95% CI 8% to 23%).Statistically significant improvement in physical function (scale of 0 to 3) was also observed in patients receiving MTX alone compared with placebo at 12 to 52 weeks (MD -0.27, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.16; odds ratio (OR) 2.8, 95% CI 0.23 to 32.2; NNT 4, 95% CI 3 to 7). Nine more patients out of 100 improved in physical function compared to placebo (ATB -9%, 95% CI -13% to -5.3%). Similarly, the proportion of patients who improved at least 20% on the Short Form-36 (SF-36) physical component was higher in the MTX-treated group compared with placebo at 52 weeks (RR 1.5, 95% CI 1.0 to 2.1; NNT 9, 95% CI 4 to 539). Twelve more patients out of 100 showed an improvement of at least 20% in the physical component of the quality of life measure compared to placebo (ATB 12%, 95% CI 1% to 24%). No clinically important or statistically significant differences were observed in the SF-36 mental component.Although no statistically significant differences were observed in radiographic scores (that is, Total Sharp score, erosion score, joint space narrowing), radiographic progression rates (measured by an increase in erosion scores of more than 3 units on a scale ranging from 0 to 448) were statistically significantly lower for patients in the MTX group compared with placebo-treated patients (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.86; NNT 13, 95% CI 10 to 60). Eight more patients out of 100 showed less damage to joints measured by an increase in erosion scores compared to placebo (ATB -8%, 95% CI -16% to -1%). In the one study measuring remission, no participants in either group met the remission criteria. These are defined by at least five of (≥ 2 months): morning stiffness of < 15 minutes, no fatigue, no joint pain by history, no joint tenderness, no joint swelling, and Westergren erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) of < 20 mm/hr in men and < 30 mm/hr in women.
HARMS
Patients in the MTX monotherapy group were twice as likely to discontinue from the study due to adverse events compared to patients in the placebo group, at 12 to 52 weeks (16% versus 8%; RR 2.1, 95% CI 1.3 to 3.3; NNT 13, 95% CI 6 to 44). Compared to placebo, nine more people out of 100 who took MTX withdrew from the studies because of side effects (ATB 9%, 95% CI 3% to 14%). Total adverse event rates at 12 weeks were higher in the MTX monotherapy group compared to the placebo group (45% versus 15%; RR 3.0, 95% CI 1.4 to 6.4; NNT 4, 95% CI 2 to 17). Thirty more people out of 100 who took MTX compared to those who took placebo experienced any type of side effect (common or rare) (ATB 30, 95% CI 13% to 47%). No statistically significant differences were observed in the total number of serious adverse events between the MTX group and the placebo group at 27 to 52 weeks. Three people out of 100 who took MTX alone experienced rare but serious side effects compared to 2 people out of 100 who took a placebo (3% versus 2%, respectively).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on mainly moderate to high quality evidence, methotrexate (weekly doses ranging between 5 mg and 25 mg) showed a substantial clinical and statistically significant benefit compared to placebo in the short term treatment (12 to 52 weeks) of people with RA, although its use was associated with a 16% discontinuation rate due to adverse events.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Female; Folic Acid Antagonists; Humans; Male; Medication Adherence; Methotrexate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 24916606
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000957.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2000To estimate the short-term effects of D-penicillamine for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the short-term effects of D-penicillamine for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group's trials register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline up to and including December 1998 and Embase from 1988-1998. We also carried out a handsearch of the reference lists of the trials retrieved from the electronic search.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials comparing D-penicillamine against placebo in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The methodological quality of the trials was assessed independently by two reviewers (CS, EB) and checked by a third (MS) using a validated quality assessment tool. Rheumatoid arthritis outcome measures were extracted from the publications for the six-month endpoint and stratified according to D-penicillamine dosages: low (<500mg/day), moderate (500 to <1000mg/day) and high (1000 mg/day or greater). Data was abstracted by one reviewer and checked by a second (CS, MS). The pooled analysis was performed using the standardized mean difference for joint counts, pain and global assessments. The weighted mean difference was used for erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Toxicity was evaluated with pooled odds ratios for withdrawals and adverse reactions. A chi-square test was used to assess heterogeneity among trials. Fixed effects models were used throughout, since no statistical heterogeneity was found.
MAIN RESULTS
Six trials were identified, with 425 patients randomized to D-penacillamine and 258 to placebo. A statistically significant benefit was observed for D-penicillamine when compared to placebo for all three-dose ranges and for most outcome measures including: tender joint counts, pain, physician's global assessments and ESR. The standardized weighted mean differences between treatment and placebo in moderate doses were -0. 51 [95% CI -0.88, -0.14] for tender joint counts, -0.56 (95% CI -0. 87, -0.26) for pain and -0.97 (95% CI -1.25, -0.70) for global assessment. The difference for ESR was -10.6 mm/hr. Similar results were observed for the higher dose group. Total withdrawals were significantly higher in the moderate and high dosage D-penicillamine groups (OR=1.63 and 2.13 respectively), mostly due to increased adverse reactions (OR = 2.60 and 4.95 respectively), including renal and hematological abnormalities.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
D-penicillamine appears to have a clinically and statistically significant benefit on the disease activity of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Its efficacy appears to be similar to that of other disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), but with a significantly higher toxicity. Its effects on long-term functional status and radiological progression are not clear from this review.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Humans; Penicillamine
PubMed: 10796440
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001460 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2013The rate of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) in moderately premature infants has decreased dramatically with improved care in the neonatal intensive care unit. A low... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The rate of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) in moderately premature infants has decreased dramatically with improved care in the neonatal intensive care unit. A low rate of this disorder was unexpectedly observed among infants treated with intravenous D-penicillamine to prevent hyperbilirubinaemia. This observation led to the investigation of its use, both enterally as well as intravenously, to prevent ROP.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effect of prophylactic administration of D-penicillamine on the incidence of acute ROP or severe ROP and other morbidities in preterm infants.
SEARCH METHODS
We used the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group search strategy. Two review authors independently searched multiple electronic databases, previous reviews including cross references, abstracts, conference/symposia proceedings, and expert informants. We updated the search on November 27, 2012.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials if they administered D-penicillamine and compared it with no treatment or placebo to premature infants and reported on the outcome of ROP.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the criteria and standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to assess the methodological quality of the included trials. One review author examined trials for validity. A second review author checked validity and they reached consensus on the final data before entry into this review. We used the standards of the Neonatal Cochrane Review Group to analyse data.
MAIN RESULTS
Three randomised trials met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed no significant differences in the risk of any stage ROP (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 3.70), severe ROP (typical RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.03 to 4.26) or death (typical RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.32) in all treated infants. When the subgroup of infants under 1500 g birth weight was examined, the results were similar. No side effects were reported, and follow-up at one year revealed no significant differences in spasticity or developmental delay.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Administration of prophylactic D-penicillamine in preterm infants does not prevent acute or severe ROP, death or neurodevelopmental delay. D-penicillamine cannot be recommended for the prevention of ROP based on the available evidence.
Topics: Chelating Agents; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Penicillamine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retinopathy of Prematurity
PubMed: 24002688
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001073.pub2 -
Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism May 2024Drug-induced dermatomyositis (DIDM) is a rare and underestimated variant of dermatomyositis (DM) characterized by muscle damage and skin rash and related to certain drug... (Review)
Review
Drug-induced dermatomyositis (DIDM) is a rare and underestimated variant of dermatomyositis (DM) characterized by muscle damage and skin rash and related to certain drug exposure. The spectrum of drugs causing DIDM has evolved over time, originally implicating hydroxyurea, penicillamine, and statins as causative agents. Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors have also been associated with such conditions. To bridge the gap between current literature and clinical practice, and therefore guide clinicians, we conducted a comprehensive review of English literature from Pubmed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE. Our analysis included demographic data, clinical features, laboratory findings, therapeutic outcomes, and extant research pertaining to the probable pathogenesis of DIDM induced by various drugs. Furthermore, we categorized the drugs involved in DIDM cases into biologics and traditional agents for subsequent statistical analysis. Over time, there has been a gradual accumulation of reported DIDM cases. A total of 69 published DIDM cases were documented in our study, among which 33 should be attributed to biologics and the remaining 36 to traditional drugs. Interestingly, 41 of all DIDM cases had a previous history of malignancies. Additionally, DIDM cases exhibited similar cutaneous and muscular manifestations to classic DM, with the exception of cases induced by hydroxyurea, which did not entail muscle damage. Positive antinuclear antibodies and anti-TIF1-γ autoantibodies have been predominantly observed in biologics-induced cases, while positive anti-TIF1-γ antibodies were merely reported in the cases that were primarily diagnosed with malignant diseases and exposed to ICIs afterwards. Anti-TIF1-γ antibodies may potentially serve as a red flag in the identification of co-existing malignant diseases in DM patients. We also provided a comprehensive summary and exploration of potential mechanisms lying behind drug-induced dermatomyositis. In conclusion, our review consolidates the current literature on DIDM, highlighting the evolving spectrum of medications and elucidating the differences in clinical manifestations, laboratory findings, and underlying mechanisms.
PubMed: 38833729
DOI: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2024.152478 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2006Primary sclerosing cholangitis is a cholestatic disease. D-penicillamine is suggested as a treatment option due to its copper reducing and immunomodulatory potential. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Primary sclerosing cholangitis is a cholestatic disease. D-penicillamine is suggested as a treatment option due to its copper reducing and immunomodulatory potential.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of D-penicillamine for patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Eligible trials were identified through searches of The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (August 2005), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (1950 to August 2005), EMBASE (1980 to August 2005), Science Citation Index EXPANDED (1945 to August 2005), and reference lists of relevant articles. Authors of trials and pharmaceutical companies known to produce D-penicillamine were also contacted.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials comparing D-penicillamine in any dose, duration, and route of administration versus placebo, no intervention, or other intervention(s). Trials were included irrespective of publication status, year of publication, language, or blinding.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Both authors selected the trials, extracted data, and evaluated the methodological quality of the trials with respect to the generation of allocation sequence, allocation concealment, blinding, and follow-up. The results were reported by intention-to-treat analysis. The outcomes were presented as relative risk (RR) or weighted mean difference (WMD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
One randomised trial was identified and included in the review. It was of low methodological quality. The trial compared D-penicillamine versus placebo in 70 patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Compared with placebo, D-penicillamine therapy had no significant effect on mortality (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.64), liver transplantation (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.17), hepatic histologic progression (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.74), or cholangiographic deterioration (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.79). D-penicillamine led to a significant improvement in the serum aspartate aminotransferase (WMD -23.00 U/L; 95% CI -30.66 to -15.34), but not in serum bilirubin level (WMD 0.40 mg/L; 95% CI -0.19 to 0.99) and serum alkaline phosphatases activity (WMD 44.00 U/L; 95% CI -37.89 to 125.89). There were significantly more adverse events in patients receiving D-penicillamine (P = 0.013).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is not sufficient evidence to support or refute the use of D-penicillamine for patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. We do not recommend the use of D-penicillamine for patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis outside randomised trials.
Topics: Cholangitis, Sclerosing; Humans; Penicillamine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 16437475
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004182.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2017Primary biliary cholangitis (previously primary biliary cirrhosis) is a chronic liver disease caused by the destruction of small intra-hepatic bile ducts resulting in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Primary biliary cholangitis (previously primary biliary cirrhosis) is a chronic liver disease caused by the destruction of small intra-hepatic bile ducts resulting in stasis of bile (cholestasis), liver fibrosis, and liver cirrhosis. The optimal pharmacological treatment of primary biliary cholangitis remains uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different pharmacological interventions in the treatment of primary biliary cholangitis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the available pharmacological interventions according to their safety and efficacy. However, it was not possible to assess whether the potential effect modifiers were similar across different comparisons. Therefore, we did not perform the network meta-analysis, and instead, assessed the comparative benefits and harms of different interventions using standard Cochrane methodology.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and randomised controlled trials registers to February 2017 to identify randomised clinical trials on pharmacological interventions for primary biliary cholangitis.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in participants with primary biliary cholangitis. We excluded trials which included participants who had previously undergone liver transplantation. We considered any of the various pharmacological interventions compared with each other or with placebo or no intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and rate ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models based on available-participant analysis with Review Manager 5. We assessed risk of bias according to Cochrane, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis, and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 74 trials including 5902 participants that met the inclusion criteria of this review. A total of 46 trials (4274 participants) provided information for one or more outcomes. All the trials were at high risk of bias in one or more domains. Overall, all the evidence was low or very low quality. The proportion of participants with symptoms varied from 19.9% to 100% in the trials that reported this information. The proportion of participants who were antimitochondrial antibody (AMA) positive ranged from 80.8% to 100% in the trials that reported this information. It appeared that most trials included participants who had not received previous treatments or included participants regardless of the previous treatments received. The follow-up in the trials ranged from 1 to 96 months.The proportion of people with mortality (maximal follow-up) was higher in the methotrexate group versus the no intervention group (OR 8.83, 95% CI 1.01 to 76.96; 60 participants; 1 trial; low quality evidence). The proportion of people with mortality (maximal follow-up) was lower in the azathioprine group versus the no intervention group (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.98; 224 participants; 2 trials; I = 0%; low quality evidence). However, it has to be noted that a large proportion of participants (25%) was excluded from the trial that contributed most participants to this analysis and the results were not reliable. There was no evidence of a difference in any of the remaining comparisons. The proportion of people with serious adverse events was higher in the D-penicillamine versus no intervention group (OR 28.77, 95% CI 1.57 to 526.67; 52 participants; 1 trial; low quality evidence). The proportion of people with serious adverse events was higher in the obeticholic acid plus ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) group versus the UDCA group (OR 3.58, 95% CI 1.02 to 12.51; 216 participants; 1 trial; low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in any of the remaining comparisons for serious adverse events (proportion) or serious adverse events (number of events). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life at any time point.
FUNDING
nine trials had no special funding or were funded by hospital or charities; 31 trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies; and 34 trials provided no information on source of funding.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on very low quality evidence, there is currently no evidence that any intervention is beneficial for primary biliary cholangitis. However, the follow-up periods in the trials were short and there is significant uncertainty in this issue. Further well-designed randomised clinical trials are necessary. Future randomised clinical trials ought to be adequately powered; performed in people who are generally seen in the clinic rather than in highly selected participants; employ blinding; avoid post-randomisation dropouts or planned cross-overs; should have sufficient follow-up period (e.g. five or 10 years or more); and use clinically important outcomes such as mortality, health-related quality of life, cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, and liver transplantation. Alternatively, very large groups of participants should be randomised to facilitate shorter trial duration.
Topics: Azathioprine; Chenodeoxycholic Acid; Cholagogues and Choleretics; Cholangitis; Chronic Disease; Colchicine; Cyclosporine; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Methotrexate; Mitochondria; Network Meta-Analysis; Penicillamine; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ursodeoxycholic Acid
PubMed: 28350426
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011648.pub2 -
Oncotarget Sep 2015Most comprehensive treatments for PBC include UDCA, combination of methotrexate (MTX), corticosteroids (COT), colchicine (COC) or bezafibrate (BEF), cyclosporin A (CYP),... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Most comprehensive treatments for PBC include UDCA, combination of methotrexate (MTX), corticosteroids (COT), colchicine (COC) or bezafibrate (BEF), cyclosporin A (CYP), D-penicillamine (DPM), methotrexate (MTX), or azathioprine (AZP). Since the optimum treatment regimen remains inconclusive, we aimed to compare these therapies in terms of patient mortality or liver transplantation (MOLT) and adverse event (AE).
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials until August 2014. We estimated HRs for MOLT and ORs for AE. The sensitivity analysis based on dose of UDCA was also performed.
RESULTS
The search identified 49 studies involving 12 different treatment regimens and 4182 patients. Although no statistical significance can be found in MOLT, COT plus UDCA was ranked highest for efficacy outcome amongst all the treatment regimes. While for AEs, compared with OBS or UDCA, monotherapy with COC (OR 5.6, P < 0.001; OR 5.89, P < 0.001), CYP (OR 3.24, P < 0.001; OR 3.42, P < 0.001), DPM (OR 8.00, P < 0.001; OR 8.45, P < 0.001) and MTX (OR 5.31, P < 0.001; OR 5.61, P < 0.001) were associated with statistically significant increased risk of AEs. No significant differences were found for other combination regimes. Effect estimates from indirect comparisons matched closely to estimates derived from pairwise comparisons. Consistently, in the sensitivity analysis, results closely resembled our primary analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
COT plus UDCA was the most efficacious among treatment regimens both for MOLT and AEs.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Aged; Azathioprine; Bezafibrate; Bile Ducts; Colchicine; Cyclosporine; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Liver Cirrhosis, Biliary; Male; Methotrexate; Middle Aged; Penicillamine; Treatment Outcome; Ursodeoxycholic Acid
PubMed: 26109432
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.4528 -
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Jul 2009To perform a systematic literature review of the long-term safety of methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To perform a systematic literature review of the long-term safety of methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
METHODS
A search was performed in Medline, Cochrane and EMBASE. Adults with RA who had received MTX monotherapy for more than 2 years were studied.
RESULTS
88 published studies were included. Over 12 years of treatment, the termination rate of MTX due to toxicity was less than for sulfasalazine, gold, d-penicillamine and higher than for hydroxychloroquine (level of evidence 2a-2b). Long-term use of MTX does not appear to be a risk factor for serious infections, including herpes zoster (2b-4), and could provide a survival benefit by reducing cardiovascular mortality (2b). The prevalence of raised liver enzymes (more than twice the upper limit of normal) is close to 13% of patients; 3.7% of patients stopped MTX permanently owing to liver toxicity (2b). Data on the risk for liver fibrosis/cirrhosis are conflicting: a meta-analysis showed an incidence of fibrosis of 2.7% after 4 years of MTX (2a). However, two other studies on sequential liver biopsies did not show evidence for developing severe damage (2b). Insufficient data are available to fully assess the risk of lymphoma and malignancies, although there is no strong evidence of increased risk (2b-4).
CONCLUSION
This systematic literature search on MTX monotherapy with relatively low-dose use during at least 2 years shows favourable long-term safety.
Topics: Adult; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Cardiovascular Diseases; Chemical and Drug Induced Liver Injury; Humans; Infections; Long-Term Care; Methotrexate; Neoplasms; Pneumonia; Risk Factors
PubMed: 19060002
DOI: 10.1136/ard.2008.093690 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2017Primary sclerosing cholangitis is a chronic cholestatic liver disease that is associated with both hepatobiliary and colorectal malignancies, which can result in liver... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Primary sclerosing cholangitis is a chronic cholestatic liver disease that is associated with both hepatobiliary and colorectal malignancies, which can result in liver cirrhosis and its complications. The optimal pharmacological treatment for patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis remains controversial.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different pharmacological interventions in people with primary sclerosing cholangitis by performing a network meta-analysis, and to generate rankings of available pharmacological interventions according to their safety and efficacy. Given that it was not possible to assess whether potential effect modifiers were similar across comparisons, we did not perform the network meta-analysis but instead used standard Cochrane methods.When trials begin to provide an adequate description of potential effect modifiers, we will attempt to conduct network meta-analysis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index - Expanded, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and randomised controlled trials registers until February 2017 to identify randomised clinical trials (RCT) on pharmacological interventions for primary sclerosing cholangitis.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included only RCTs, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status, in which participants were given a diagnosis of primary sclerosing cholangitis. We excluded trials that included previously liver-transplanted participants. We considered any of various pharmacological interventions compared with one other or with placebo. We excluded trials that compared different doses of various pharmacological interventions or that reported different treatment durations, except for ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA). As UDCA is the drug most commonly investigated for primary sclerosing cholangitis, we performed a second analysis in which we stratified the dose of UDCA.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We calculated the odds ratio and the rate ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models based on available-participant analysis with Review Manager. We assessed risk of bias according to Cochrane, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis, and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 22 RCTs in which 1211 participants were randomised to 13 different interventions. Most were placebo-controlled trials. Trials had few restrictions apart from an established diagnosis of primary sclerosing cholangitis, evidence of cholestasis, absence of decompensated liver disease, and absence of malignancy. However, some trials included symptomatic participants only, and others included both symptomatic and asymptomatic participants. A total of 11 RCTs (706 participants) provided data for one or more outcomes. The period of follow-up ranged from three months to three years in most trials. Only three trials reported follow-up longer than three years. Investigators found no evidence of differences in important clinical benefits such as reduction in mortality at maximal follow-up and improvement in health-related quality of life. Primary outcomes Mortality: Effect estimates: colchicine versus placebo: odds ratio 0.44, 95% CI 0.04 to 5.07, participants = 84, one trial; penicillamine versus placebo: odds ratio 1.18, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.58, participants = 70, one trial; steroids versus placebo: odds ratio 3.00, 95% CI 0.10 to 90.96, participants = 11, one trial; ursodeoxycholic acid versus placebo: odds ratio 1.51, 95% CI 0.63 to 3.63, participants = 348, two trials, I = 0%; vancomycin versus placebo: not estimable because no events in either group, participants = 29, one trial. Serious adverse events (proportion): Effect estimates: infliximab versus placebo: odds ratio not estimable (because of zero events in both arms), participants = 7, one trial; steroids versus placebo: odds ratio 20.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 429.90, participants = 11, one trial; vancomycin versus placebo: not estimable because no events in either group, participants = 29, one trial. Serious adverse events (number): Effect estimates: infliximab versus placebo: rate ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.02 to 40.44, participants = 7, one trial; penicillamine versus placebo: rate ratio 13.60, 95% CI 0.78 to 237.83, participants = 70, one trial; steroids versus placebo: rate ratio 3.32, 95% CI 0.71 to 15.62, participants = 11, one trial. Adverse events (proportion): Effect estimates: steroids versus placebo: odds ratio 20.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 429.90, participants = 11, one trial; ursodeoxycholic acid versus placebo: odds ratio 1.22, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.17, participants = 198, one trial; vancomycin versus placebo: not estimable because no events in either group, participants = 29, one trial. Adverse events (number): Effect estimates: cyclosporin versus placebo: rate ratio 2.64, 95% CI 0.99 to 7.03, participants = 26, one trial; steroids versus placebo: rate ratio 3.32, 95% CI 0.71 to 15.62, participants = 11, one trial; ursodeoxycholic acid plus metronidazole versus ursodeoxycholic acid: rate ratio 2.36, 95% CI 0.98 to 5.71, participants = 71, one trial. Health-related quality of life: ursodeoxycholic acid versus placebo: mean difference 1.30, 95% CI -5.61 to 8.21, participants = 198, one trial (Short Form (SF)-36 General Health Scale). Secondary outcomes Studies provided no evidence of differences in clinical benefits such as a reduction in the requirement for liver transplantation or a reduction in the incidence proportion of cholangiocarcinoma. One small trial (29 participants) comparing vancomycin versus placebo reported no malignancies, no liver decompensation, and no liver transplantation in either group after a very short follow-up period of 12 weeks after treatment. None of the remaining trials clearly reported other clinical benefits such as decreased development of all malignancies, colorectal cancer, liver decompensation, time to liver decompensation, time to liver transplantation, or requirement for cholecystectomy to allow comparisons between different interventions.
SOURCE OF FUNDING
Fifteen trials reported the source of funding; three were funded by parties without vested interest in results of the trial, and 12 were funded in part or in full by drug companies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence is currently insufficient to show differences in effectiveness measures such as mortality, health-related quality of life, cirrhosis, or liver transplantation between any active pharmacological intervention and no intervention. However, trials were at high risk of bias and included small numbers of participants, had short follow-up periods, and reported few clinical outcomes. An urgent need exists to identify an effective medical treatment for primary sclerosing cholangitis through well-designed RCTs with adequate follow-up that aim to identify differences in outcomes important to people with primary sclerosing cholangitis.
PubMed: 28417463
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011343.pub2