-
BMJ Clinical Evidence May 2007Essential tremor is one of the most common movement disorders throughout the world, with prevalence in the general population of 0.4-3.9%. Although most people with... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Essential tremor is one of the most common movement disorders throughout the world, with prevalence in the general population of 0.4-3.9%. Although most people with essential tremor are only mildly affected, those who seek medical care are disabled to some extent, and most are socially handicapped by the tremor.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of drug treatments in people with essential tremor of the hand? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to December 2006 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 41 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: adding mirtazepine to other antitremor drugs; benzodiazepines; beta-blockers other than propranolol; botulinum A toxin-haemagglutinin complex; calcium channel blockers; carbonic anhydrase inhibitors; clonidine; flunarizine; gabapentin; isoniazid; Phenobarbital; primidone; propranolol; and topiramate.
Topics: Double-Blind Method; Essential Tremor; Humans; Primidone; Propranolol; Tremor
PubMed: 19454072
DOI: No ID Found -
Cancers May 2023Quality pharmacological treatment can improve survival in many types of cancer. Drug repurposing offers advantages in comparison with traditional drug development... (Review)
Review
Quality pharmacological treatment can improve survival in many types of cancer. Drug repurposing offers advantages in comparison with traditional drug development procedures, reducing time and risk. This systematic review identified the most recent randomized controlled clinical trials that focus on drug repurposing in oncology. We found that only a few clinical trials were placebo-controlled or standard-of-care-alone-controlled. Metformin has been studied for potential use in various types of cancer, including prostate, lung, and pancreatic cancer. Other studies assessed the possible use of the antiparasitic agent mebendazole in colorectal cancer and of propranolol in multiple myeloma or, when combined with etodolac, in breast cancer. We were able to identify trials that study the potential use of known antineoplastics in other non-oncological conditions, such as imatinib for severe coronavirus disease in 2019 or a study protocol aiming to assess the possible repurposing of leuprolide for Alzheimer's disease. Major limitations of these clinical trials were the small sample size, the high clinical heterogeneity of the participants regarding the stage of the neoplastic disease, and the lack of accounting for multimorbidity and other baseline clinical characteristics. Drug repurposing possibilities in oncology must be carefully examined with well-designed trials, considering factors that could influence prognosis.
PubMed: 37296934
DOI: 10.3390/cancers15112972 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2017Essential tremor (ET) is one of the most common movement disorders. The management is primarily based on pharmacological agents and in clinical practice propranolol and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Essential tremor (ET) is one of the most common movement disorders. The management is primarily based on pharmacological agents and in clinical practice propranolol and primidone are considered the first-line therapy. However, these treatments can be ineffective in 25% to 55% of people and are frequently associated with serious adverse events (AEs). For these reasons, it is worthwhile evaluating other treatments for ET. Topiramate has been suggested as a potentially useful agent for the treatment of ET but there is uncertainty about its efficacy and safety.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of topiramate in the treatment of ET.
SEARCH METHODS
We carried out a systematic search without language restrictions to identify all relevant trials in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (January 1966 to January 2017), Embase (January 1988 to January 2017), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (1999 to January 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov (1997 to January 2017) and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; 2004 to January 2017). We searched BIOSIS Citation Index (2000 to January 2017) for conference proceedings. We handsearched grey literature and the reference lists of identified studies and reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of topiramate versus placebo/open control or any other treatments. We included studies in which the diagnosis of ET was made according to accepted and validated diagnostic criteria. We excluded studies conducted in people presenting with secondary forms of tremor or reporting only neurophysiological parameters to assess outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently collected and extracted data using a data collection form. We assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence. We used a fixed-effect meta-analysis for data synthesis.
MAIN RESULTS
This review included three trials comparing topiramate to placebo (309 participants). They were all at high overall risk of bias. The quality of evidence ranged from very low to low. Compared to placebo, participants treated with topiramate showed a significant improvement in functional disability and an increased risk of withdrawal (risk ratio (RR) 1.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 2.60). There were more AEs for topiramate-treated participants, particularly paraesthesia, weight loss, appetite decrease and memory difficulty.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review highlighted the presence of limited data and very low to low quality evidence to support the apparent efficacy and the occurrence of treatment-limiting AEs in people with ET treated with topiramate. Further research to assess topiramate efficacy and safety on ET is needed.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Anticonvulsants; Essential Tremor; Fructose; Humans; Patient Dropouts; Publication Bias; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Topiramate
PubMed: 28409827
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009683.pub2 -
Cureus Aug 2023The most common cause of portal hypertension is liver cirrhosis. Portal hypertension causes many complications in cirrhotic patients; a significant complication is the... (Review)
Review
The Efficacy of Carvedilol in Comparison to Propranolol in Reducing the Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient and Decreasing the Risk of Variceal Bleeding in Adult Cirrhotic Patients: A Systematic Review.
The most common cause of portal hypertension is liver cirrhosis. Portal hypertension causes many complications in cirrhotic patients; a significant complication is the formation of varices and the subsequent life-threatening variceal bleeding due to elevated portal venous pressures. Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is the gold standard for measuring portal hypertension and guides management. Pharmacological treatments lower the HVPG, preventing the progression of varices and subsequent variceal bleeding. The pharmacological treatments frequently used in primary and secondary prophylaxis of a variceal bleed are nonselective beta (β)-adrenergic blockers. Propranolol was the first nonselective β-adrenergic blocker used for lowering HVPG and has been well studied. However, in the past decade, clinical trials have shown that carvedilol has been more effective. This study aims to establish whether carvedilol is more effective than propranolol in reducing the hepatic venous pressure gradient and decreasing the risk of variceal bleeding in adult cirrhotic patients. A systematic review has been conducted to gather relevant clinical trials comparing drugs and their effects on HVPG. Four databases: PubMed (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE)), Google Scholar, the Cochrane Library, and ScienceDirect, were analyzed, and records from January 1, 1999, to January 1, 2023, were chosen. There were a total of 1,235 potentially eligible records across the four databases. Using the eligibility criteria for this systematic review, seven studies of 533 patients were included. Across all seven clinical trials, it was found that carvedilol reduced HVPG more than propranolol and decreased the risk of variceal bleeding in adult cirrhotic patients.
PubMed: 37577269
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.43253 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2017Propranolol is one of the most commonly prescribed drugs for migraine prophylaxis. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Propranolol is one of the most commonly prescribed drugs for migraine prophylaxis.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to determine whether there is evidence that propranolol is more effective than placebo and as effective as other drugs for the interval (prophylactic) treatment of patients with migraine.
SEARCH METHODS
Potentially eligible studies were identified by searching MEDLINE/PubMed (1966 to May 2003) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 2, 2003), and by screening bibliographies of reviews and identified articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials of at least 4 weeks duration comparing clinical effects of propranolol with placebo or another drug in adult migraine sufferers.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers extracted information on patients, methods, interventions, outcomes measured, and results using a pre-tested form. Study quality was assessed using two checklists (Jadad scale and Delphi list). Due to the heterogeneity of outcome measures and insufficient reporting of the data, only selective quantitative meta-analyses were performed. As far as possible, effect size estimates were calculated for single trials. In addition, results were summarised descriptively and by a vote count among the reviewers.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 58 trials with 5072 participants met the inclusion criteria. The 58 selected trials included 26 comparisons with placebo and 47 comparisons with other drugs. The methodological quality of the majority of trials was unsatisfactory. The principal shortcomings were high dropout rates and insufficient reporting and handling of this problem in the analysis. Overall, the 26 placebo-controlled trials showed clear short-term effects of propranolol over placebo. Due to the lack of studies with long-term follow up, it is unclear whether these effects are stable after stopping propranolol. The 47 comparisons with calcium antagonists, other beta-blockers, and a variety of other drugs did not yield any clear-cut differences. Sample size was, however, insufficient in most trials to establish equivalence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Although many trials have relevant methodological shortcomings, there is clear evidence that propranolol is more effective than placebo in the short-term interval treatment of migraine. Evidence on long-term effects is lacking. Propranolol seems to be as effective and safe as a variety of other drugs used for migraine prophylaxis.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Adult; Calcium Channel Blockers; Humans; Migraine Disorders; Propranolol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Refusal
PubMed: 28212466
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003225.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016Essential tremor is one of the most common movement disorders. Treatment primarily consists of pharmacological agents. While primidone and propranolol are... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Essential tremor is one of the most common movement disorders. Treatment primarily consists of pharmacological agents. While primidone and propranolol are well-established treatments in clinical practice, they may be ineffective in 25% to 55% of patients and can produce serious adverse events in a large percentage of them. For these reasons, it is worth evaluating the treatment alternatives for essential tremor. Some specialists have suggested that pregabalin could be a potentially useful agent, but there is uncertainty about its efficacy and safety.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of pregabalin versus placebo or other treatment for essential tremor in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed a systematic search without language restrictions to identify all relevant trials up to December 2015. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, NICE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We handsearched grey literature and examined the reference lists of identified studies and reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pregabalin versus placebo or any other treatments. We included studies in which the diagnosis of ET was made according to accepted and validated diagnostic criteria. We excluded studies conducted in patients presenting secondary forms of tremor or reporting only neurophysiological parameters to assess outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently collected and extracted data using a data collection form. We assessed the risk of bias of the body of evidence, and we used inverse variance methods to analyse continuous outcomes and measurement scales. We compared the mean difference between treatment groups, and we combined results for dichotomous outcomes using Mantel-Haenszel methods and risk differences We used Review Manager software for data management and analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We only found one study eligible for this review (22 participants). We assessed the risk of bias for most domains as unclear. We graded the overall quality of evidence as very low. Compared to placebo, patients treated with pregabalin showed no significant improvement of motor tasks on the 36-point subscale of the Fahn-Tolosa-Marin Tremor Rating Scale (TRS) (MD -2.15 points; 95% CI -9.16 to 4.86) or on the 32-point functional abilities subscale of the TRS (MD -0.66 points; 95% CI -2.90 to 1.58).The limited evidence showed no difference in study withdrawal (Mantel-Haenszel RD -0.09; 95% CI -0.48 to 0.30) and presentation of adverse events between pregabalin and placebo (Mantel-Haenszel RD 0.18; 95% CI -0.13 to 0.50).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The effects of pregabalin for treating essential tremor are uncertain because the quality of the evidence is very low. One small study did not highlight any effect of this treatment; however, the high risk of bias and the lack of other studies on this topic limit further conclusion.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Essential Tremor; Humans; Middle Aged; Pregabalin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Upper Extremity
PubMed: 27763691
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009682.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2017Essential tremor (ET) is one of the most common movement disorders. The treatment is primarily based on pharmacological agents. Although primidone and propranolol are... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Essential tremor (ET) is one of the most common movement disorders. The treatment is primarily based on pharmacological agents. Although primidone and propranolol are well established treatments in clinical practice, they can be ineffective in 25% to 55% of patients, and can produce serious adverse events in a large percentage of them. For these reasons, it may be worthwhile evaluating the treatment alternatives for ET. Zonisamide has been suggested as a potentially useful agent for the treatment of ET but there is uncertainty about its efficacy and safety.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect on functional abilities and the safety profile of zonisamide in adults with essential tremor (ET).
SEARCH METHODS
We carried out a systematic search, without language restrictions to identify all relevant trials. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, NICE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) to January 2017. We searched BIOSIS Citation Index (2000 to January 2017) for conference proceedings. We handsearched grey literature and examined the reference lists of identified studies and reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of zonisamide versus placebo or any other treatment. We included studies in which the diagnosis of ET was made according to accepted and validated diagnostic criteria. We excluded studies conducted in patients presenting secondary forms of tremor or reporting only neurophysiological parameters to assess outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently collected and extracted data using a data collection form. We assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence.We used inverse variance methods for continuous outcomes and measurement scales. We compared differences between treatment groups as mean differences. We combined results for dichotomous outcomes using Mantel-Haenszel methods and obtained risk differences to compare treatment groups. We used Review Manager 5 software for data management and analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We only considered one study eligible for this review (20 participants). Assessments of risk of bias for most domains were unclear or low. Adverse events were only reported in participants from the zonisamide group, making it possible that they were aware of treatment group assignment. We are uncertain as to the effects of zonisamide on motor tasks (mean difference (MD) -0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.51 to 1.51, very low-quality evidence) and functional disabilities (MD -0.30, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.63, very low-quality evidence) when compared with placebo. Three participants in the zonisamide group (30%) and two participants in the placebo group (20%) discontinued the treatment and withdrew from the study for any reason (very low-quality evidence), however the increased risk of withdrawal in the zonisamide group was statistically non-significant (risk difference (RD) 0.1, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.48). Six participants in the zonisamide group (60%) and none of the participants in the placebo group (0%) developed adverse events (AEs), with a RD of 0.60 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.92; very low quality evidence). The most common AEs, experienced with zonisamide treatment, were headache, nausea, fatigue, sleepiness, and diarrhoea. Quality of life was not assessed in the study included.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on currently available data, there is insufficient evidence to assess the efficacy and safety of zonisamide treatment for ET.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Essential Tremor; Humans; Isoxazoles; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Zonisamide
PubMed: 28836659
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009684.pub2 -
Annals of Hepatology 2014Carvedilol appears to be more effective than propranolol in the treatment of portal hypertension in cirrhotic patients. Aim. To compare the effects of carvedilol vs.... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Carvedilol appears to be more effective than propranolol in the treatment of portal hypertension in cirrhotic patients. Aim. To compare the effects of carvedilol vs. propranolol on systemic and splanchnic haemodynamics and to evaluate the adverse events associated with these treatments.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
We performed a systematic review following the Cochrane and PRISMA recommendations. Randomised controlled trials comparing carvedilol versus propranolol, in the treatment of portal hypertension in cirrhotic patients with oesophageal varices, with or without bleeding history were included. The primary outcome measure was the haemodynamic response to treatment.
RESULTS
Four randomised trials and 153 patients were included; 79 patients received carvedilol (6.25-50 mg/d) and 74 patients received propranolol (10-320 mg/d). The hepatic vein pressure gradient (HVPG) decreased more with carvedilol than with propranolol (MD -2.21; 95% CI: -2.83 to -1.60, I(2) = 0%, P < 0.00001). Carvedilol was superior to propranolol for reducing HVPG by ≥ 20% from the baseline value or to ≤ 12 mmHg (OR: 2.93; 95% CI: 1.50 to 5.74, I(2) = 22%, P = 0.002). Overall adverse events did not differ between. In conclusion, there is limited evidence suggesting that carvedilol is more effective than propranolol for improving the haemodynamic response in cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension. Long-term randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm this information.
Topics: Antihypertensive Agents; Carbazoles; Carvedilol; Esophageal and Gastric Varices; Hemodynamics; Hepatic Veins; Humans; Hypertension, Portal; Liver Cirrhosis; Propanolamines; Propranolol; Splanchnic Circulation; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24927613
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2015Essential tremor (ET) is one of the most common movement disorders. Treatment is based primarily on pharmacological agents. On this basis, although primidone and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Essential tremor (ET) is one of the most common movement disorders. Treatment is based primarily on pharmacological agents. On this basis, although primidone and propranolol are well-established treatments in clinical practice, they could be ineffective in 25% to 55% of patients and can produce serious adverse events (AEs) in a large percentage of individuals. For these reasons, evaluating treatment alternatives for ET may be a worthwhile pursuit. Alprazolam has been suggested as a potentially useful agent for treatment of individuals with ET, but its efficacy and safety are uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
PrimaryTo assess the efficacy and safety of alprazolam in the treatment of individuals with ET. SecondaryTo examine effects of alprazolam treatment on the quality of life of people with ET.
SEARCH METHODS
We carried out a systematic search without language restrictions to identify all relevant trials. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (January 1966 to September 2015), EMBASE (January 1988 to September 2015), the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (1999 to September 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov (1997 to September 2015) and the World Health Organiza tion (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (2004 to September 2015). We handsearched grey literature and examined the reference lists of identified studies and reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of alprazolam versus placebo or any other treatment. We included studies in which ET was diagnosed according to accepted and validated diagnostic criteria. We excluded studies that included patients presenting with secondary forms of tremor or reporting only neurophysiological parameters for the pur p ose of assessing outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently collected and extracted data using a data collection form. We assessed risk of bias and the body of evidence. We used inverse variance methods for continuous outcomes and measurement scales. We compared differences between treatment groups as mean differences. We used Review Manager software for management and analysis of data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included in this review one trial that compared alprazolam versus placebo (24 participants). It was judged to have high overall risk of bias. We graded the overall quality of evidence as very low. Compared with those given placebo, participants treated with alprazolam showed a significant reduction in tremor severity (mean difference (MD) -0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.83 to -0.67). Nine alprazolam-treated participants (75%) developed AEs, mainly represented by sedation (50%), constipation (17%) and dry mouth (9%). No participants in the alprazolam group and no p articipants in the placebo group discontinued treatment and dropped out of the study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Currently available data reveal evidence insufficient for assessment of the efficacy and safety of alprazolam treatment for individuals with ET.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Alprazolam; Anticonvulsants; Constipation; Essential Tremor; Humans; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Xerostomia
PubMed: 26638213
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009681.pub2 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Feb 2019Concerns about the effects of propranolol on the central nervous system (CNS) in the infantile hemangioma (IH) population have been raised. We conducted a meta-analysis... (Review)
Review
Concerns about the effects of propranolol on the central nervous system (CNS) in the infantile hemangioma (IH) population have been raised. We conducted a meta-analysis of the CNS and sleep-related effects of oral propranolol in IH patients. PubMed, Embase, Cochrance, Web of Science, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for relevant studies. We included clinical trials that compared oral propranolol with other treatments among IH patients under 6 years old and monitored and reported any adverse events. Study characteristics, types and number of adverse events were abstracted. Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool was used to assess risk of bias. Our main outcomes were CNS and sleep-related effects. Random-effects models were used to estimate the pooled risk ratio. We did not observe statistically significant associations between oral propranolol and CNS or sleep-related effects. Oral propranolol appeared to have a safer profile of CNS effects than corticosteroids (RR = 0.27, 95% CI 0.02⁻3.00), but had an increased risk versus non-corticosteroids (for CNS effect, RR = 1.40, 95% CI 0.86⁻2.27; for sleep-related effects, RR = 1.63, 95% CI 0.88⁻3.03). Despite no statistically significant associations, there were suggestive findings of increased CNS effects and sleep-related risk of propranolol versus non-corticosteroids. In practice, CNS and sleep-related events should be monitored more closely among IH patients treated with oral propranolol.
PubMed: 30813242
DOI: 10.3390/jcm8020268