Efficacy and safety of recombinant human epidermal growth factor for diabetic foot ulcers: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials

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.

Download Full-text

Clinical efficacy and safety of cefiderocol in the treatment of acute bacterial infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Journal of Global Antimicrobial Resistance ◽

10.1016/j.jgar.2021.02.004 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 24 ◽

pp. 376-382

Author(s):

Shun-Chung Hsueh ◽

Chien-Ming Chao ◽

Cheng-Yi Wang ◽

Chih-Cheng Lai ◽

Chao-Hsien Chen

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Efficacy ◽

Randomised Controlled Trials ◽

Bacterial Infections ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Acute Bacterial Infections

Download Full-text

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

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047344 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

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 ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050004 ◽

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.

Download Full-text