Prophylaxis against covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis

Abstract Objective To determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on SARS-CoV-2 infection and covid-19. Design Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources World Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 25 March 2021, and six additional Chinese databases to 20 February 2021. Study selection Randomised trials of people at risk of covid-19 who were assigned to receive prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. Methods Random effects bayesian network meta-analysis was performed after duplicate data abstraction. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results The first iteration of this living network meta-analysis includes nine randomised trials—six of hydroxychloroquine (n=6059 participants), one of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan (n=234), and two of ivermectin alone (n=540), all compared with standard care or placebo. Two trials (one of ramipril and one of bromhexine hydrochloride) did not meet the sample size requirements for network meta-analysis. Hydroxychloroquine has trivial to no effect on admission to hospital (risk difference 1 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% credible interval 3 fewer to 4 more; high certainty evidence) or mortality (1 fewer per 1000, 2 fewer to 3 more; high certainty). Hydroxychloroquine probably does not reduce the risk of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (2 more per 1000, 18 fewer to 28 more; moderate certainty), probably increases adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation (19 more per 1000, 1 fewer to 70 more; moderate certainty), and may have trivial to no effect on suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (15 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 41 more; low certainty). Owing to serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, and thus very low certainty of evidence, the effects of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan on laboratory confirmed covid-19 (52 fewer per 1000, 58 fewer to 37 fewer), ivermectin alone on laboratory confirmed infection (50 fewer per 1000, 59 fewer to 16 fewer) and suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed infection (159 fewer per 1000, 165 fewer to 144 fewer) remain very uncertain. Conclusions Hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis has trivial to no effect on hospital admission and mortality, probably increases adverse effects, and probably does not reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because of serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, it is highly uncertain whether ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan and ivermectin alone reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Systematic review registration This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement. Readers’ note This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.

Download Full-text

Prophylaxis for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis

10.1101/2021.02.24.21250469 ◽

2021 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Jessica J Bartoszko ◽

Reed AC Siemieniuk ◽

Elena Kum ◽

Anila Qasim ◽

Dena Zeraatkar ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Adverse Effects ◽

Standard Care ◽

Randomized Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

A Priori ◽

Credible Interval ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Drug Discontinuation ◽

Drug Prophylaxis

AbstractObjectiveTo determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).DesignLiving systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesWHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 19 January 2021, and six additional Chinese databases to 20 January 2021.Study selectionRandomized trials in which people at risk of covid-19 were randomized to drug prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.MethodsAfter duplicate data abstraction, we conducted random-effects bayesian network meta-analysis. We assessed risk of bias of the included studies using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsThe first iteration of this living network meta-analysis includes nine randomized trials – six addressing hydroxychloroquine (6,059 participants), one addressing ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan (234 participants) and two addressing ivermectin alone (540 participants), all compared to standard care or placebo. Hydroxychloroquine has no important effect on admission to hospital (risk difference (RD) 1 fewer per 1,000, 95% credible interval (CrI) 3 fewer to 4 more, high certainty) or mortality (RD 1 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 2 fewer to 3 more, high certainty). Hydroxychloroquine probably has no important effect on laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 2 more per 1,000, 95% CrI 18 fewer to 28 more, moderate certainty), probably increases adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation (RD 19 more per 1,000, 95% CrI 1 fewer to 70 more, moderate certainty) and may have no important effect on suspected, probable or laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 15 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 64 fewer to 41 more, low certainty). Due to serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision – and thus very low certainty evidence, the effects of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan on laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 52 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 58 fewer to 37 fewer), and ivermectin alone on laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 50 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 59 fewer to 16 fewer) and suspected, probable or laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 159 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 165 fewer to 144 fewer) remain uncertain.ConclusionHydroxychloroquine prophylaxis does not have an important effect on hospital admission and mortality, probably increases adverse effects, and probably does not have an important effect on laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because of serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, we are highly uncertain whether ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan and ivermectin alone reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.Systematic review registrationThis review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement.FundingThis study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR-IRSC:0579001321).Readers’ noteThis article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.

Download Full-text

Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis

BMJ ◽

10.1136/bmj.m2980 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. m2980 ◽

Cited By ~ 49

Author(s):

Reed AC Siemieniuk ◽

Jessica J Bartoszko ◽

Long Ge ◽

Dena Zeraatkar ◽

Ariel Izcovich ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Mechanical Ventilation ◽

Standard Care ◽

Interferon Beta ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Drug Discontinuation ◽

Duration Of Symptoms ◽

Risk Of Death ◽

The Impact

Abstract Objective To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). Design Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 3 December 2020 and six additional Chinese databases up to 12 November 2020. Study selection Randomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. Methods After duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance. Results 85 trials enrolling 41 669 patients met inclusion criteria as of 21 October 2020; 50 (58.8%) trials and 25 081 (60.2%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 43 (50.6%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, corticosteroids probably reduce death (risk difference 17 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 34 fewer to 1 more, moderate certainty), mechanical ventilation (29 fewer per 1000 patients, 54 fewer to 1 more, moderate certainty), and days free from mechanical ventilation (2.6 fewer, 0.2 fewer to 5.0 fewer, moderate certainty). The impact of remdesivir on mortality, mechanical ventilation, length of hospital stay, and duration of symptoms is uncertain, but it probably does not substantially increase adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation (0 more per 1000, 9 fewer to 40 more, moderate certainty). Azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, interferon-beta, and tocilizumab may not reduce risk of death or have an effect on any other patient-important outcome. The certainty in effects for all other interventions was low or very low. Conclusion Corticosteroids probably reduce mortality and mechanical ventilation in patients with covid-19 compared with standard care, whereas azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, interferon-beta, and tocilizumab may not reduce either. Whether or not remdesivir confers any patient-important benefit remains uncertain. Systematic review registration This review was not registered. The protocol is included as a supplement. Readers’ note This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This version is the second update of the original article published on 30 July 2020 ( BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.

Download Full-text

Effect of consumption of animal milk compared to infant formula for non-breastfed/mixed-fed infants 6–11 months of age: a systematic review (protocol)

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046370 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (2) ◽

pp. e046370

Author(s):

Aamer Imdad ◽

Julie Melissa Ehrlich ◽

Joseph Catania ◽

Emily Tanner-Smith ◽

Abigail Smith ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Infant Formula ◽

Breast Feeding ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

World Health ◽

Control Group ◽

Breastfed Infants ◽

Evaluation Approach ◽

Animal Milk

IntroductionPrevalence rates of breastfeeding remain low even though the World Health Organization (WHO) and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend exclusive breast feeding for the first 6 months of life in combination with appropriate complementary feeding beyond six 6 months of age. There have been several studies that address the implication of drinking animal milk and/or infant formula on children’s health and development when breast feeding is not offered during the first year of life. Vast improvements have been made in infant formula design, which may increase its benefits compared with animal’s milk. The objective of this review is therefore to synthesise the most recent evidence on the effects of the consumption of animal milk compared with infant formula in non-breastfed or mixed breastfed infants aged 6–11 months.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that assessed the effect of animal milk compared with formula or mixed-fed (breastmilk and formula) on infants aged 6–11 months. The primary outcomes of interest include anaemia, gastrointestinal blood loss, weight for age, height for age and weight for height. We will include randomised and non-randomised studies with a control group. We will use the Cochrane risk of bias tools to assess the risk of bias. We will use meta-analysis to pool findings if the identified studies are conceptually homogenous and data are available from more than one study. We will assess the overall quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.Ethics and disseminationThis is a systematic review, so no patients will be directly involved in the design or development of this study. The findings from this systematic review will be disseminated to relevant patient populations and caregivers and will guide the WHO’s recommendations on formula consumption versus animal milk in infants aged 6–11 months.Trial registration numberCRD42020210925.

Download Full-text

Mortality Benefit From the Passive Leg Raise Maneuver in Guiding Resuscitation of Septic Shock Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Journal of Intensive Care Medicine ◽

10.1177/08850666211019713 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 088506662110197

Author(s):

Moosa Azadian ◽

Suyee Win ◽

Amir Abdipour ◽

Carolyn Krystal Kim ◽

H. Bryant Nguyen

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Septic Shock ◽

Fluid Resuscitation ◽

Standard Care ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Time Interval ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Passive Leg Raise

Background: Fluid therapy plays a major role in the management of critically ill patients. Yet assessment of intravascular volume in these patients is challenging. Different invasive and non-invasive methods have been used with variable results. The passive leg raise (PLR) maneuver has been recommended by international guidelines as a means to determine appropriate fluid resuscitation. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to determine if using this method of volume assessment has an impact on mortality outcome in patients with septic shock. Methods: This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched available data in the MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases from inception until October 2020 for prospective, randomized, controlled trials that compared PLR-guided fluid resuscitation to standard care in adult patients with septic shock. Our primary outcome was mortality at the longest duration of follow-up. Results: We screened 1,425 article titles and abstracts. Of the 23 full-text articles reviewed, 5 studies with 462 patients met our eligibility criteria. Odds ratios (ORs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for mortality at the longest reported time interval were calculated for each study. Using random effects modeling, the pooled OR (95% CI) for mortality with a PLR-guided resuscitation strategy was 0.82 (0.52 -1.30). The included studies were not blinded and they ranged from having low to high risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Conclusion: Our analysis showed there was no statistically significant difference in mortality among septic shock patients treated with PLR-guided resuscitation vs. those with standard care.

Download Full-text

Cardiovascular Toxicities Secondary to Biotherapy and Molecular Targeted Therapies in Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trials

Cancers ◽

10.3390/cancers13092159 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 13 (9) ◽

pp. 2159

Author(s):

Charalampos Aktypis ◽

Maria-Eleni Spei ◽

Maria Yavropoulou ◽

Göran Wallin ◽

Anna Koumarianou ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Adverse Effects ◽

Targeted Therapies ◽

Safety Profile ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Mtor Inhibitors ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Neuroendocrine Neoplasms ◽

Controlled Trials

A broad spectrum of novel targeted therapies with prime antitumor activity and/or ample control of hormonal symptoms together with an overall acceptable safety profile have emerged for patients with metastatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs). In this systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis, the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched to assess and compare the safety profile of NEN treatments with special focus on the cardiovascular adverse effects of biotherapy and molecular targeted therapies (MTTs). Quality/risk of bias were assessed using GRADE criteria. Placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in patients with metastatic NENs, including medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) were included. A total of 3695 articles and 122 clinical trials registered in clinicaltrials.gov were screened. We included sixteen relevant RCTs comprising 3408 unique patients assigned to different treatments compared with placebo. All the included studies had a low risk of bias. We identified four drug therapies for NENs with eligible placebo-controlled RCTs: somatostatin analogs (SSAs), tryptophan hydroxylase (TPH) inhibitors, mTOR inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). Grade 3 and 4 adverse effects (AE) were more often encountered in patients treated with mTOR inhibitors and TKI (odds ratio [OR]: 2.42, 95% CI: 1.87–3.12 and OR: 3.41, 95% CI: 1.46–7.96, respectively) as compared to SSAs (OR:0.77, 95% CI: 0.47–1.27) and TPH inhibitors (OR:0.77, 95% CI: 0.35–1.69). MTOR inhibitors had the highest risk for serious cardiac AE (OR:3.28, 95% CI: 1.66–6.48) followed by TKIs (OR:1.51, 95% CI: 0.59–3.83). Serious vascular AE were more often encountered in NEN patients treated with mTOR inhibitors (OR: 1.72, 95% CI: 0.64–4.64) and TKIs (OR:1.64, 95% CI: 0.35–7.78). Finally, patients on TKIs were at higher risk for new-onset or exacerbation of pre-existing hypertension (OR:3.31, 95% CI: 1.87–5.86). In conclusion, SSAs and TPH inhibitors appear to be safer as compared to mTOR inhibitors and TKIs with regards to their overall toxicity profile, and cardiovascular toxicities in particular. Special consideration should be given to a patient-tailored approach with anticipated toxicities of targeted NEN treatments together with assessment of cardiovascular comorbidities, assisting clinicians in treatment selection and early recognition/management of cardiovascular toxicities. This approach could improve patient compliance and preserve cardiovascular health and overall quality of life.

Download Full-text

P–394 Intralipid infusion at time of embryo transfer in women with history of recurrent implantation failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Human Reproduction ◽

10.1093/humrep/deab130.393 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽

Author(s):

M P Rimmer ◽

N Black ◽

S Keay ◽

S Quenby ◽

B. H.A Wattar

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Embryo Transfer ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Small Sample ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Population Characteristics ◽

Implantation Failure ◽

Randomised Trials ◽

Recurrent Implantation Failure ◽

History Of

Abstract Study question What is the effectiveness of IV Intralipid (IVI) in improving pregnancy rates in women undergoing IVF with history of Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) to improve reproductive outcomes. Summary answer The evidence to support the use of IVI at the time of embryo transfer in women with RIF is limited. More RCTs are needed. What is known already: Optimising the implantation process following embryo transfer remains a clinical challenge with 10% of couples undergoing IVF affected by (RIF). Immunotherapy could help to optimise endometrial receptivity and increase the chances for successful conception in women with history of RIF. Intra-venous Intralipid (IVI), a fat-based emulsion of soybean oil, glycerine, phospholipids, egg, and polyunsaturated fatty acids, has been evaluated in several trials as a potential intervention to downregulate the uNK cells and macrophages as well as inhibit the pro-inflammatory mediators including T1 helper cells. Evidence synthesis is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of this intervention. Study design, size, duration We performed this systematic review using a prospectively registered protocol (CRD42019148517) and reported in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Participants/materials, setting, methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL for any randomised trials evaluating the use of IVI at the time of embryo transfer in women undergoing assisted conception until September 2020. We extracted data in duplicate and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tools. We meta-analysed data using a random effect model and reported on dichotomous outcomes using risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Main results and the role of chance We included five randomised trials reporting on 843 women with an overall moderate risk of bias. All trials used 20% IVI solution at the time of embryo transfer compared to normal saline infusion or no intervention (routine care). The IVI group had a higher chance of clinical pregnancy (172 vs 119, RR 1.55, 95%CI 1.16–2.07, I2 44.2%) and live birth (132 vs 73, RR 1.83, 95%CI 1.42–2.35, I2 0%) post treatment compared to no intervention. Limitations, reasons for caution Our findings are limited by the small sample size and the variations in treatment protocols and population characteristics. Wider implications of the findings: Our meta-analysis offers an overview on the value of IVI to help women affected by RIF. Given the limitations and the quality of included trials, adopting the use of IVI a-la-carte to couples undergoing IVF remains immature. IVI should not be offered until larger RCTs demonstrate a persistent benefit. Trial registration number CRD42019148517

Download Full-text

Safety and efficiency of gasless laparoscopy: a systematic review protocol

Systematic Reviews ◽

10.1186/s13643-020-01365-y ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 9 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Haitham Shoman ◽

Simone Sandler ◽

Alexander Peters ◽

Ameer Farooq ◽

Magdalen Gruendl ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Assessment Tool ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

A Priori ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Conventional Laparoscopy ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Gasless Laparoscopy ◽

Resource Setting

Abstract Background Gasless laparoscopy, developed in the early 1990s, was a means to minimize the clinical and financial challenges of pneumoperitoneum and general anaesthesia. It has been used in a variety of procedures such as in general surgery and gynecology procedures including diagnostic laparoscopy. There has been increasing evidence of the utility of gasless laparoscopy in resource limited settings where diagnostic imaging is not available. In addition, it may help save costs for hospitals. The aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review of the available evidence surrounding the safety and efficiency of gasless laparoscopy compared to conventional laparoscopy and open techniques and to analyze the benefits that gasless laparoscopy has for low resource setting hospitals. Methods This protocol is developed by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis–Protocols (PRISMA-P). The PRISMA statement guidelines and flowchart will be used to conduct the study itself. MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, and Global Index Medicus (WHO) will be searched and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database. The articles that will be found will be pooled into Covidence article manager software where all the records will be screened for eligibility and duplicates removed. A data extraction spreadsheet will be developed based on variables of interest set a priori. Reviewers will then screen all included studies based on the eligibility criteria. The GRADE tool will be used to assess the quality of the studies and the risk of bias in all the studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk assessment tool. The RoB II tool will assed the risk of bias in randomized control studies and the ROBINS I will be used for the non-randomized studies. Discussion This study will be a comprehensive review on all published articles found using this search strategy on the safety and efficiency of the use of gasless laparoscopy. The systematic review outcomes will include safety and efficiency of gasless laparoscopy compared to the use of conventional laparoscopy or laparotomy. Trial registration The study has been registered in PROSPERO under registration number: CRD42017078338

Download Full-text

Short-Term Effectiveness and Safety of Biologics and Small Molecule Drugs for Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Life ◽

10.3390/life11090927 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (9) ◽

pp. 927

Author(s):

José-Juan Pereyra-Rodriguez ◽

Sara Alcantara-Luna ◽

Javier Domínguez-Cruz ◽

Manuel Galán-Gutiérrez ◽

Ricardo Ruiz-Villaverde ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Atopic Dermatitis ◽

Adverse Effects ◽

Small Molecules ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Severe Atopic Dermatitis ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Number Of Patients

Background: Some Network Meta-analysis (NMA) has been published regarding atopic dermatitis (AD). These studies have considered drugs under investigation both in monotheraphy or in combination with topical corticosteroids, as well as systemic immunosuppressant therapies. The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of biological agents and small molecules in AD. Methods: A systematic review and NMA of biologics agents and small molecules in AD was performed. A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for clinical trials and systematic reviews between January 2000 and 19 December 2020. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included. It was limited to English language and adult human subjects. Two networks were evaluated: monotherapy and combination with TCS. The two primary outcomes were Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) 75 and EASI 90 change from baseline to week 12–16, depending on source study cut-off. The Cochrane’s Risk of Bias tool 2011 update was used to analyze the risk of bias, focused on the primary objectives. Results: 30 RCTs (included in 26 publications) were included in the systematic review. Finally, 23 RCTs were included in the quantitative analysis (14 RCTs including 3582 patients in monotherapy; and 9 RCTs including 3686 patients with TCS). In monotherapy, a higher percentage of patients achieving EASI-75 was obtained with Upadacitinib 30 mg [OR: 18.90 (13.94; 25.62)] followed by Abrocitinib 200 mg [OR = 11.26 (7.02; 18.05)] and Upadacitinib 15 mg [OR: 10.89 (8.13; 14.59)]. These results were also observed in studies where the use of topical corticosteroid (TCS) was allowed (OR Upadacitinib 30 mg = 9.43; OR Abrocitinib 200 mg = 6.12; OR Upadacitinib 15 mg = 5.20). Regarding IGA, the percentage of patients achieving IGA0/1 was higher with both doses of Upadacitinib 30 mg [OR: 19.13 (13.14; 27.85)] and 15 mg [OR = 10.95 (7.52; 15.94). In studies where the use of TCS were allowed, however, the dose of Abrocitinib 200 mg [OR = 6.10 (3.94; 9.44)] showed higher efficacy than Upadacitinib 15 mg [OR = 5.47 (3.57; 8.41)]. Regarding safety, the drugs with the highest probability of presenting adverse effects were the Janus kinases (JAK) inhibitors, Upadacitinib and Abrocitinib in monotherapy and Baricitinib in combination with TCS. Discussion: Some risks of bias have been found, which must be taken into account when interpreting the results. The funnel plot shows a possible publication bias that may underestimate the efficacy of drugs. Upadacitinib and Abrocitinib are the drugs with the highest efficacy, both in monotherapy and in association with TCS. However, they were also those associated with the highest risk of adverse effects, showing monoclonal antibodies better safety profile. Limitations: We have included molecules still in the development phase as well studies completed and presented at conferences and with data available in Trialsgov® but not published yet. Several molecules’ development had included a small number of patients from 12 to 17 years of age, without being able to differentiate the results from the adult population. Other: Founding: None. PROSPERO database registration number CRD42021225793.

Download Full-text

Does aerobic exercise reduce postpartum depressive symptoms? a systematic review and meta-analysis

British Journal of General Practice ◽

10.3399/bjgp17x692525 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 67 (663) ◽

pp. e684-e691 ◽

Cited By ~ 19

Author(s):

Ruth Victoria Pritchett ◽

Amanda J Daley ◽

Kate Jolly

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Depressive Symptoms ◽

Aerobic Exercise ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

World Health ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Group Exercise ◽

Postpartum Depressive Symptoms ◽

Health Organization

BackgroundThere is currently no specific guidance on the role of exercise in managing postpartum depression in the UK and US, and international guidance is inconsistent.AimTo assess the effectiveness of aerobic exercise on postpartum depressive symptoms.Design and settingSystematic review and meta-analysis. There was no restriction to study site or setting.MethodThe databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, SportDiscus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched. Titles and abstracts, then full-text articles, were screened against inclusion criteria: RCTs measuring depressive symptoms in mothers ≤1 year postpartum; and interventions designed to increase aerobic exercise compared with usual care or other comparators. Included studies were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was conducted. Pre-planned subgroup analyses explored heterogeneity.ResultsThirteen RCTs were included, with 1734 eligible participants. Exercise significantly reduced depressive symptoms when all trials were combined (standardised mean difference −0.44; 95% confidence interval = −0.75 to −0.12). Exploration of heterogeneity did not find significant differences in effect size between women with possible depression and in general postpartum populations; exercise only and exercise with co-interventions; and group exercise and exercise counselling.ConclusionThis systematic review provides support for the effectiveness of exercise in reducing postpartum depressive symptoms. Group exercise, participant-chosen exercise, and exercise with co-interventions all may be effective interventions. These results should be interpreted with caution because of substantial heterogeneity and risk of bias.

Download Full-text

Parent–Infant Interventions to Promote Parental Sensitivity During NICU Hospitalization: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal of Early Intervention ◽

10.1177/1053815121991928 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 105381512199192

Author(s):

Andréane Lavallée ◽

Gwenaëlle De Clifford-Faugère ◽

Ariane Ballard ◽

Marilyn Aita

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Standard Care ◽

Assessment Tool ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Parental Sensitivity ◽

Assessment Development ◽

Implementation Failure ◽

Meta Analyses

This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of parent–infant interventions for parents of preterm infants on parental sensitivity compared to standard care or active comparators. This review follows the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and was prospectively registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration ID: CRD42016047083). Database searches were performed from inception to 2020 to identify eligible randomized controlled trials. Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool and quality of evidence using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines. A total of 19 studies ( n = 2,111 participants) were included and 14 were suitable to be pooled in our primary outcome meta-analysis. Results show no significant effect of parent–infant interventions over standard care or basic educational programs, on parental sensitivity. Results may not necessarily be due to the ineffectiveness of the interventions but rather due to implementation failure or high risk of bias of included studies.

Download Full-text