scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of current treatment interventions for patients with severe COVID‐19 infection: a network meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gang Zhao ◽  
Qinglin Cheng ◽  
Junfang Chen ◽  
Qingjun Jia ◽  
Zijian Fang
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Current Treatment ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Treatment Interventions ◽  
Randomised Controlled

scholarly journals Comparative efficacy and safety of different regimens of ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e040906
Author(s):  
Xinyu Zhao ◽  
Lihui Meng ◽  
Youxin Chen
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Macular Degeneration ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Age Related Macular Degeneration ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Age Related ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveTo give a comprehensive efficacy and safety ranking of different therapeutic regimens of ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).DesignA systematic review and network meta-analysis.MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other clinical trial registries were searched up to 1 October 2019 to identify related randomised controlled trials (RCT) of different regimens of ranibizumab for nAMD. The primary efficacy outcome was the changes of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 1 year, the primary safety outcome was the incidence of severe ocular adverse events. Secondary outcomes such as changes of central retinal thickness (CRT) were evaluated. We estimated the standardised mean difference (SMD), ORs, 95% CIs, the surface under the cumulative ranking curves and the mean ranks for each outcome using network meta-analyses with random effects by Stata 14.0.ResultsWe identified 26 RCTs involving 10 821 patients with nAMD randomly assigned to 21 different therapeutic regimens of ranibizumab or sham treatment. Ranibizumab 0.5 mg (treat and extend, T&E) is most effective in terms of changes of BCVA (letters, SMD=21.41, 95% CI 19.86 to 22.95) and three or more lines of BCVA improvement (OR=2.83, 95% CI 1.27 to 4.38). However, it could not significantly reduce retreatment times compared with monthly injection (SMD=−0.94, 95% CI −2.26 to 0.39). Ranibizumab 0.5 mg (3+pro re nata)+non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is most effective in reducing CRT and port delivery system of ranibizumab (100 mg/mL) could reduce the number of retreatment most significantly. All regimes have no more risk of severe ocular complications (including vitreous haemorrhage, rhegmatogenous retinal detachment, endophthalmitis, retinal tear and retinal pigment epithelium tear) or cardiocerebral vascular complications.ConclusionsRanibizumab 0.5 mg (T&E) is most effective in improving the visual outcome. The administration of topical NSAIDs could achieve additional efficacy in CRT reduction and visual improvement. Both interventions had acceptable risks of adverse events.

scholarly journals Comparative efficacy and safety of interventions for treating head lice: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e001129
Author(s):  
Bill Stevenson ◽  
Wubshet Tesfaye ◽  
Julia Christenson ◽  
Cynthia Mathew ◽  
Solomon Abrha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Head Lice ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundHead lice infestation is a major public health problem around the globe. Its treatment is challenging due to product failures resulting from rapidly emerging resistance to existing treatments, incorrect treatment applications and misdiagnosis. Various head lice treatments with different mechanism of action have been developed and explored over the years, with limited report on systematic assessments of their efficacy and safety. This work aims to present a robust evidence summarising the interventions used in head lice.MethodThis is a systematic review and network meta-analysis which will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement for network meta-analyses. Selected databases, including PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be systematically searched for randomised controlled trials exploring head lice treatments. Searches will be limited to trials published in English from database inception till 2021. Grey literature will be identified through Open Grey, AHRQ, Grey Literature Report, Grey Matters, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry and International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry. Additional studies will be sought from reference lists of included studies. Study screening, selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will be undertaken by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved via a third reviewer. The primary outcome measure is the relative risk of cure at 7 and 14 days postinitial treatment. Secondary outcome measures may include adverse drug events, ovicidal activity, treatment compliance and acceptability, and reinfestation. Information from direct and indirect evidence will be used to generate the effect sizes (relative risk) to compare the efficacy and safety of individual head lice treatments against a common comparator (placebo and/or permethrin). Risk of bias assessment will be undertaken by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations guideline for network meta-analysis. All quantitative analyses will be conducted using STATA V.16.DiscussionThe evidence generated from this systematic review and meta-analysis is intended for use in evidence-driven treatment of head lice infestations and will be instrumental in informing health professionals, public health practitioners and policy-makers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017073375.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of omalizumab in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. e047344
Author(s):  
Qingwu Wu ◽  
Lianxiong Yuan ◽  
Huijun Qiu ◽  
Xinyue Wang ◽  
Xuekun Huang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Chronic Rhinosinusitis ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Nasal Polyps ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy and safety of omalizumab for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and to identify evidence gaps that will guide future research on omalizumab for CRSwNP.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesA comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library on 13 October 2020.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing omalizumab with placebo, given for at least 16 weeks in adult patients with CRSwNP.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent authors screened search results, extracted data and assessed studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data were pooled using the inverse-variance method and expressed as mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was assessed by the χ2 test and the I2 statistic.ResultsA total of four RCTs involving 303 participants were identified. When comparing omalizumab to placebo, there was a significant difference in Nasal Polyps Score (MD=−1.20; 95% CI −1.48 to −0.92), Nasal Congestion Score (MD=−0.67; 95% CI −0.86 to −0.48), Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (MD=−15.62; 95% CI −19.79 to −11.45), Total Nasal Symptom Score (MD=−1.84; 95% CI −2.43 to −1.25) and reduced need for surgery (risk ratio (RR)=5.61; 95% CI 1.99 to 15.81). Furthermore, there was no difference in the risk of serious adverse events ((RR=1.40; 95% CI 0.29 to 6.80), adverse events (RR=0.83; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.15) and rescue systemic corticosteroid (RR=0.52; 95% CI 0.17 to 1.61).ConclusionsThis was the first meta-analysis that identified omalizumab significantly improved endoscopic, clinical and patient-reported outcomes in adults with moderate to severe CRSwNP and it was safe and well tolerated.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020207639.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of pirfenidone in the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. e050004
Author(s):  
Wenjuan Wu ◽  
Lingxiao Qiu ◽  
Jizhen Wu ◽  
Xueya Liu ◽  
Guojun Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis ◽  
Pulmonary Fibrosis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Acute Exacerbation ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesIdiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) has been defined as a distinctive type of chronic fibrotic disease, characterised by a progressive decline in lung function and a common histological pattern of interstitial pneumonia. To analyse the efficacy and safety of pirfenidone in the treatment of IPF, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed.DesignThis is a meta-analysis study.ParticipantsPatients were diagnosed as IPF.InterventionsUse of pirfenidone.Primary and secondary outcomeProgression-free survival (PFS), acute exacerbation and worsening of IPF and Impact on adverse events.MeasuresThe inverse variance method for the random-effects model was used to summarise the dichotomous outcomes, risk ratios and 95% CIs.ResultsA total of 9 randomised controlled trials with 1011 participants receiving pirfenidone and 912 controls receiving placebo were summarised. The pooled result suggested a statistically significant difference inall-cause mortality after pirfenidone use, with a summarised relative ratio of 0.51 (p<0.01). Longer PFS was observed in patients receiving pirfenidone compared with those who were given placebo (p<0.01). The IPF groups presented a high incidence of adverse events with a pooled relative ratio of 3.89 (p<0.01).ConclusionsPirfenidone can provide survival benefit for patients with IPF. Pirfenidone treatment was also associated with a longer PFS, a lower incidence of acute exacerbation and worsening of IPF.

scholarly journals Comparing efficacy and safety in catheter ablation strategies for atrial fibrillation: protocol of a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. e041819
Author(s):  
Emmanouil Charitakis ◽  
Lars O Karlsson ◽  
Kostantinos Rizas ◽  
Henrik Almroth ◽  
Anders Hassel Jönsson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Catheter Ablation ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Separate Analysis ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionAtrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia. Catheter ablation (CA) of AF is an increasingly offered therapeutic approach, primary to relieve AF-related symptoms. Despite the development of new ablation approaches, there is no consensus regarding the most efficient ablation strategy. The objective of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to compare the efficacy and safety of all different CA approaches for the treatment of patients with paroxysmal (PAF) and non-PAF (non-PAF).Methods and analysisWe will perform a systematic search to identify randomised controlled trials of different CA approaches for the treatment of PAF and non-PAF, through the final search date of 1 March 2020. Information sources will include major bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science and CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries. Our primary outcomes will be the efficacy (recurrence-free survival) and safety of different CA approaches for the treatment of AF. Secondary outcomes will be all-cause mortality and procedural time. An NMA will be performed to determine the relative effects of different catheter ablation approaches (such as pulmonary vein isolation alone or in combination with ablation lines, ablation of complex fractionated atrial electrograms, etc). In PAF, a separate analysis will be performed including different energy sources (such as radiofrequency, cryogenic and laser energy). Risk of bias assessment and sensitivity analyses will be conducted to assess the robustness of the findings to potential bias.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval will be needed because data are collected from previous studies. The results will be presented through peer-review journals and conference presentation.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020169494.

Efficacy and safety of iron therapy in patients with chronic heart failure and iron deficiency: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on 15 randomised controlled trials

2020 ◽  
pp. postgradmedj-2019-137342
Author(s):  
Junyi Zhang ◽  
Shengda Hu ◽  
Yufeng Jiang ◽  
Yafeng Zhou
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Chronic Heart Failure ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Iron Therapy ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
6Mwt Distance ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Trials studying iron administration in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) and iron deficiency (ID) have sprung up these years but the results remain inconsistent. The aim of this meta-analysis was to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of iron therapy in patients with CHF and ID. A literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, OVID and Web of Science up to 31 July 2019 to search for randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing iron therapy with placebo in CHF with ID, regardless of presence of anaemia. Published studies reporting data of any of the following outcomes were included: all-cause death, cardiovascular hospitalisation, adverse events, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide, peak oxygen consumption, 6 min walking test (6MWT) distance and quality of life (QoL) parameters. 15 RCTs with a total of 1627 patients (911 in iron therapy and 716 in control) were included. Iron therapy was demonstrated to reduce the risk of cardiovascular hospitalisation (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.99, p=0.049), but was ineffective in reducing all-cause death (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.06, p=0.078) or cardiovascular death (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.63, p=0.540). Iron therapy resulted in a reduction in NYHA class (mean difference (MD) −0.73, 95% CI −0.99 to −0.47, p<0.001), an increase in LVEF (MD +4.35, 95% CI 0.69 to 8.00, p=0.020), 6MWT distance (MD +35.44, 95% CI 11.55 to 59.33, p=0.004) and an improvement in QoL: EQ-5D score (MD +4.07, 95% CI 0.84 to 7.31, p=0.014); Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire score (MD −19.47, 95% CI −23.36 to −15.59, p<0.001) and Patients Global Assessment (PGA) scale (MD 0.71, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.10, p<0.001). There was no significant difference in adverse events or serious adverse events between iron treatment group and control group. Iron therapy reduces cardiovascular hospitalisation in patients with CHF with ID, and additionally improves cardiac function, exercise capacity and QoL in patients with CHF with ID and anaemia, without an increase of adverse events.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document