scholarly journals CYP2D6 polymorphism and its impact on the clinical response to metoprolol: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 86 (6) ◽  
pp. 1015-1033 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maxime Meloche ◽  
Michael Khazaka ◽  
Imad Kassem ◽  
Amina Barhdadi ◽  
Marie‐Pierre Dubé ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Response ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cyp2d6 Polymorphism

Early vs Late Use of Anti-TNFa Therapy in Adult Patients With Crohn Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (12) ◽  
pp. 1808-1818
Author(s):  
Shadi Hamdeh ◽  
Muhammad Aziz ◽  
Osama Altayar ◽  
Mojtaba Olyaee ◽  
Mohammad Hassan Murad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Response ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Crohn Disease ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Clinical Series ◽  
Early Use

Abstract Objectives While anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha (anti-TNFa) therapies for Crohn disease (CD) were initially introduced in 1998 for biologic therapies are often introduced after a minimum of 6 years after diagnosis. The benefit of anti-TNFa early in the course of CD is still controversial, with some studies showing better outcomes but others not. To determine whether earlier introduction of anti-TNFa therapy improves efficacy in clinical trials or clinical series, we aimed to perform a meta-analysis comparing early vs late anti-TNFa use in the management of CD. Methods A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus was conducted from each database’s inception to November 3, 2019. We included comparative studies of early vs late use of anti-TNFa therapy in adult patients with CD. Results Eleven studies were included in the analysis, with a total of 2501 patients. Meta-analysis demonstrated that the early use of anti-TNFa was associated with a statistically significant decrease in the need for surgery (relative risk [RR] = 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26–0.69; I2 = 68%) and disease progression (RR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.35–0.75; I2 = 61%). Early use also showed an increase in early remission (RR = 1.94; 95% CI, 1.54–2.46; I2 = 0%) and clinical response. There was no statistically significant difference in achieving late remission (RR = 1.39; 95% CI, 0.94–2.05; I2 = 65%) or mucosal healing (RR = 1.10; 95% CI, 0.63–1.91; I2 = 0%). Conclusion This systematic review suggests that using anti-TNFa earlier in the treatment of CD (within 3 years) may improve clinical outcomes compared to late administration in terms of achieving early clinical remission, clinical response, disease progression, and the need for surgery.

scholarly journals EFFICACY OF TACROLIMUS FOR INDUCTION OF REMISSION IN PATIENTS WITH MODERATE-TO-SEVERE ULCERATIVE COLITIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

2017 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 167-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan LASA ◽  
Pablo OLIVERA
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ulcerative Colitis ◽  
Clinical Response ◽  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Lower Risk ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Calcineurin Inhibitors ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Severe Ulcerative Colitis ◽  
Risk Of Failure

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND There is evidence that shows that calcineurin inhibitors may be useful for the treatment of severe ulcerative colitis. However, evidence regarding the efficacy of tacrolimus for remission induction in this setting is scarce. OBJECTIVE To develop a systematic review on the existing evidence regarding the clinical efficacy of tacrolimus for the induction of remission in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. METHODS A literature search was undertaken from 1966 to August 2016 using MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and the Cochrane Library. The following MeSH terms were used: “Inflammatory Bowel Diseases” or “Ulcerative Colitis” and “Calcineurin Inhibitors” or “Tacrolimus” or “FK506”. Studies performed in adult ulcerative colitis patients that evaluated the clinical efficacy of tacrolimus for the induction of remission were considered for revision. A meta-analysis was performed with those included studies that were also placebo-controlled and randomized. Clinical response as well as clinical remission and mucosal healing were evaluated. RESULTS Overall, 755 references were identified, from which 22 studies were finally included. Only two of them were randomized, placebo-controlled trials. A total of 172 patients were evaluated. A significantly lower risk of failure in clinical response was found for tacrolimus versus placebo [RR 0.58 (0.45-0.73)]; moreover, a lower risk of failure in the induction of remission was also found versus placebo [RR 0.91 (0.82-1)]. CONCLUSION Tacrolimus seems to be a valid therapeutic alternative for the induction of remission in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis.

scholarly journals P547 Safety and efficacy of vedolizumab in the treatment of patients with moderate to severe Ulcerative Colitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S516-S517
Author(s):  
M Khorshid Fasge ◽  
M Alboraie ◽  
W Abbas ◽  
Z E Sayed ◽  
M El-Nady
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ulcerative Colitis ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Clinical Response ◽  
Clinical Remission ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
P Value ◽  
Severe Ulcerative Colitis ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis discussing the efficacy and safety of vedolizumab (VDZ) treatment in patients with active moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC). Methods Using relevant keywords, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Central databases, until June 2020. We included interventional and observational cohort studies which assessed the safety and effectiveness of VDZ 300 mg intravenous infusion, in patients with active moderate to severe UC. We used the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale to assess the quality of included interventional and cohort studies, respectively. Dichotomous outcomes were pooled as proportion, 95% Confidence interval (CI), and p-value under the random-effects model in the open meta-analyst software. Results We found 10 interventional studies and 35 cohort studies, including 4,794 patients eligible for our review. Most of the included citations were single-arm studies. Our meta-analysis showed that VDZ therapy could induce a significant clinical response in UC patients up to 54 weeks (proportion 0.516, 95% CI [0.453, 0.578], p < 0.001). VDZ was associated with clinically significantly clinical remission and steroid-free clinical remission after 54 weeks (p < 0.0001). Durable clinical remission, histological remission, and endoscopic response rates were maintained in UC patients taking VDZ at the 52nd week. There was no significant difference between VDZ and placebo regarding the incidence of drug-related serious adverse events (p = 0.113) and death rates (p = 0.085). Conclusion Our systematic review and meta-analysis showed that the use of VDZ in patients with active moderate to severe UC was associated with high percentages of clinical response and remission rates in induction and maintenance treatment stages. VDZ seems to be well tolerated in UC patients, apart from some infections and inflammations. Future RCTs should compare VDZ to active treatments for longer follow-up periods with larger sample size.

scholarly journals Anti-MRSA Cephalosporin versus Vancomycin-Based Treatment for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Antibiotics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 1020
Author(s):  
Ching-Yi Chen ◽  
Wang-Chun Chen ◽  
Chih-Cheng Lai ◽  
Tzu-Ping Shih ◽  
Hung-Jen Tang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Response ◽  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinical Response Rate ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Skin Structure ◽  
Randomized Controlled

This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared the clinical efficacy and safety of anti-MRSA cephalosporin and vancomycin-based treatment in treating acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Turning Research into Practice, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for relevant articles from inception to 15 June 2020. RCTs comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of anti-MRSA cephalosporin with those of vancomycin-based regimens in treating adult patients with ABSSSIs were included. The primary and secondary outcomes were clinical response at the test-of-cure assessments and risk of adverse events (AEs), respectively. Eight RCTs were enrolled. The clinical response rate was not significantly different between anti-MRSA cephalosporin and vancomycin-based treatments (odds ratio [OR], 1.05; 95% CI, 0.90–1.23; I2 = 0%). Except for major cutaneous abscesses in which anti-MRSA cephalosporin-based treatment was associated with a lower clinical response rate than vancomycin-based treatment (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40–0.97; I2 = 0%), other subgroup analyses according to the type of cephalosporin (ceftaroline or ceftobiprole), type of infection, and different pathogens did not show significant differences in clinical response. Anti-MRSA cephalosporin-based treatment was only associated with a higher risk of nausea than vancomycin-based treatment (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.07–1.85; I2 = 0%). In treating ABSSSIs, the clinical efficacy of anti-MRSA cephalosporin is comparable to that of vancomycin-based treatment, except in major cutaneous abscesses. In addition to nausea, anti-MRSA cephalosporin was as tolerable as vancomycin-based treatment.

scholarly journals Is Ceftazidime/Avibactam an Option for Serious Infections Due to Extended-Spectrum-β-Lactamase- and AmpC-Producing Enterobacterales?: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
pp. e01052-20
Author(s):  
Burcu Isler ◽  
Yukiko Ezure ◽  
Jose Luis García-Fogeda Romero ◽  
Patrick Harris ◽  
Adam G. Stewart ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Clinical Response ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Extended Spectrum ◽  
Specific Outcome ◽  
Abdominal Infections

ABSTRACTCarbapenem-sparing regimens are needed for the treatment of infections caused by extended-spectrum-β-lactamase (ESBL)- and AmpC-producing members of the Enterobacterales. We sought to compare the clinical efficacy of ceftazidime/avibactam and carbapenems against ESBL- and AmpC-producing Enterobacterales species. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing ceftazidime/avibactam with carbapenems for the treatment of ESBL- and AmpC-producing Enterobacterales was conducted. Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with ESBL- and AmpC-specific outcome data were compiled. Of the 246 patients infected with an ESBL-producing microorganism in the ceftazidime/avibactam arm, 224 (91%) had a clinical response at test of cure (TOC), versus 240 of 271 (89%) patients in the carbapenem arm (risk ratio [RR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.08; P = 0.45; I2 = 0%). Clinical response rates for AmpC producers in the ceftazidime/avibactam and carbapenem arms were 32/40 (80%) and 37/42 (88%), respectively (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.10; P = 0.35; I2 = 0%). Microbiological response and mortality rates were not reported specifically for ESBL/AmpC producers. Ceftazidime/avibactam may be a carbapenem-sparing option for the treatment of mild to moderate complicated urinary tract and intra-abdominal infections caused by ESBL-producing Enterobacterales species, and the data are too limited to provide any conclusive recommendations for the AmpC producers. Care should be taken before extrapolating this to severe infections, given that the representation of this population in the reviewed studies was negligible. Ceftazidime/avibactam is a costly drug active against carbapenem-resistant microorganisms and should be used judiciously to preserve its activity against them.

scholarly journals P451 Efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in the treatment of patients with active, moderate to severe, Ulcerative Colitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S446-S447
Author(s):  
M Khorshid Fasge ◽  
D Dorgham ◽  
A Sharobim ◽  
M Attia ◽  
M Hussein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ulcerative Colitis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Clinical Response ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Drug Discontinuation ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Severe Ulcerative Colitis

Abstract Background To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to discuss the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC). Methods We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, in addition to Cochrane Central, until May 2020 using relevant keywords. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in addition to cohort studies that compared tofacitinib oral treatment versus placebo in patients with active UC, with a moderate to severe degree. Quality of included RCTs was assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool, whereas the Newcastle-Ottawa scale was applied to assess for bias sources in included cohort studies. Data were pooled, after being extracted, from eligible articles in the review manager software, or the open meta-analyst software. Dichotomous outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RR) under the fixed effect model, while continuous outcomes were pooled as standardized mean difference (SMD) under the random-effects model. Results pooling data from seven RCTs and four cohort studies, 2728 patients, showed that tofacitinib therapy was superior to placebo in inducing a clinical response in UC patients after eight weeks (p = 0.0001) and 26 weeks, in a proportion 0.4 of patients who took tofacitinib 10 mg BID. Additionally, tofacitinib treatment was associated with significantly higher events of clinical remission of UC, after eight weeks (RR= 3.12, 95% CI [2.34, 4.16], p < 0.0001). Likewise, endoscopic, deep, in addition to symptomatic remission rates were higher in the tofacitinib group, compared to the group of placebo (p ≤ 0.008). Most of the drug-related adverse events were comparable between tofacitinib and placebo groups. However, tofacitinib treatment was associated with fewer serious adverse events (RR= 0.68, 95% CI [0.48, 0.98], p = 0.04); adverse events that led to drug discontinuation (RR= 0.53, 95% CI [0.39, 0.73], p< 0.0001); and worsening of UC (RR= 0.48, 95% CI [0.38, 0.61], p < 0.00001). On the other hand, the placebo group had fewer overall infections (p = 0.002); and elevation in laboratory parameters, including LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, and triglycerides. Conclusion Our systematic review and meta-analysis showed that, in patients with active moderate to severe UC, tofacitinib treatment was superior to placebo in inducing clinical response and remission, with less adverse reactions. Additionally, treatment with tofacitinib showed beneficial quality of life and survival benefits for UC patients. Future clinical trials should study the effect of higher doses of tofacitinib in larger RCTs, with longer follow up periods.

scholarly journals Clinical response after laparoscopic fenestration of symptomatic hepatic cysts: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 691-704 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucas H. P. Bernts ◽  
Sebastiaan G. Echternach ◽  
Wietske Kievit ◽  
Camiel Rosman ◽  
Joost P. H. Drenth
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Response ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hepatic Cysts ◽  
Laparoscopic Fenestration

scholarly journals Light Therapy for Patients With Bipolar Depression: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 65 (5) ◽  
pp. 290-300 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raymond W. Lam ◽  
Minnie Y. Teng ◽  
Young-Eun Jung ◽  
Vanessa C. Evans ◽  
John F. Gottlieb ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Response ◽  
Bipolar Depression ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Light Therapy ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Depressive Episodes

Objective Bipolar disorder (BD) is challenging to treat, and fewer treatments are available for depressive episodes compared to mania. Light therapy is an evidence-based nonpharmacological treatment for seasonal and nonseasonal major depression, but fewer studies have examined its efficacy for patients with BD. Hence, we reviewed the evidence for adjunctive light therapy as a treatment for bipolar depression. Methods We conducted a systematic review of databases from inception to June 30, 2019, for randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of light therapy in patients with BD (CRD42019128996). The primary outcome was change in clinician-rated depressive symptom score; secondary outcomes included clinical response, remission, acceptability, and treatment-emergent mood switches. We quantitatively pooled outcomes using meta-analysis with random-effects models. Results We identified seven trials representing 259 patients with BD. Light therapy was associated with a significant improvement in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score (standardized mean difference = 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04 to 0.82, P = 0.03). There was also a significant difference in favor of light therapy for clinical response (odds ratio [ OR] = 2.32; 95% CI, 1.12 to 4.81; P = 0.024) but not for remission. There was no difference in affective switches between active light and control conditions ( OR = 1.30; 95% CI, 0.38 to 4.44; P = 0.67). Study limitations included different light treatment parameters, small sample sizes, short treatment durations, and variable quality across trials. Conclusion There is positive but nonconclusive evidence that adjunctive light therapy reduces symptoms of bipolar depression and increases clinical response. Light therapy is well tolerated with no increased risk of affective switch.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document