scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of the Combination Treatment of Rituximab and Dexamethasone for Adults with Primary Immune Thrombocytopenia (ITP): A Meta-Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jia Wang ◽  
Ya Li ◽  
Chong Wang ◽  
Yayue Zhang ◽  
Chong Gao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Combination Treatment ◽  
Immune Thrombocytopenia ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Primary Immune Thrombocytopenia

Objective.To conduct a meta-analysis, assessing the efficacy and safety of the combination treatment of dexamethasone and rituximab for adults with ITP (primary immune thrombocytopenia).Methods.Randomized controlled trials that compared rituximab and dexamethasone combination treatment to dexamethasone monotherapy in the treatment of adults with ITP were collected by searching Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, China National Knowledge (CNKI), Wanfang database, and Sino Med. We conducted pooled analyses on OR (overall response) rate, CR (complete response) rate, PR (partial response) rate, SR (sustained response) rate, R (relapse) rate, change in Treg cell count (mean [SD]), and AE (adverse event). GRADE pro scale was used to assess the quality of the evidence. Publication bias was assessed with Egger’s test method.Results.A total of 11 randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion. The overall efficacy estimates favored combination arm in terms of OR rate at month 3, CR rate at week 4 and month 3, SR rate, and Treg cell count at week 2. Subgroup analysis showed that females obtained a higher OR rate than males did at week 4. No significant difference was found in pooled analysis of relapse rate between combination arm and monotherapy arm. The comparison of serious AE and other AEs showed no significant difference either. A total of 19 outcomes were assessed by GRADE pro software, of which 79% (15/19) was scaled as moderate-to-high level. Publication bias existed in studies on OR at week 4 (P=0.025), CR at week 4 (P=0.017), infection (P=0.006), and rash (P=0.028) of the AEs.Conclusion.Dexamethasone combined with rituximab can provide a better long-term response in the treatment of adults with ITP and will not increase the risk of adverse effects.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Sinomenine Preparation for Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Shan-Shan Lin ◽  
Chun-Xiang Liu ◽  
Jun-Hua Zhang ◽  
Hui Wang ◽  
Jing-Bo Zhai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ankylosing Spondylitis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Morning Stiffness ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Objectives. To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of sinomenine preparation (SP) for treating ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Methods. Clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SP for treating AS were systematically identified in six electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP), and Wanfang Databases from the inception up to 31 October 2019. Cochrane’s risk of bias tool was used to assess the methodological quality and Review Manager 5.3 software was used to analyze data. Results. A total of 12 RCTs involving 835 patients were finally included. According to interventions, RCTs were divided into two types. The intervention in 10 RCTs was SP combined with conventional pharmacotherapy (CPT) versus CPT and that in 2 RCTs was SP alone versus CPT. The results of the meta-analysis showed that, compared with CPT alone, SP combined with oral CPT has better improvement in BASDAI (WMD = −1.84, 95% CI [−3.31, −0.37], P=0.01), morning stiffness time (WMD = −13.46, 95% CI [−16.12, −10.79], P<0.00001), the Schober test (WMD = 1.26, 95% CI [0.72, 1.80], P<0.00001), the occipital wall test (WMD = −0.55, 95% CI [−0.96, −0.14], P=0.009), the finger-to-ground distance (WMD = −3.28, 95% CI [−5.64, −0.93], P=0.006), 15 m walking time (WMD = −8.81, 95% CI [−13.42, −4.20], P=0.0002), the C-reactive protein (CRP) (WMD = −1.84, 95% CI [−3.24, −0.45], P=0.01), and the total effective rate (RR = 1.10, 95% CI [1.01, 1.20], P=0.03). Besides, it also showed that oral SP alone may be more effective in improving morning stiffness time (WMD = −31.89, 95% CI [−34.91, −28.87], P<0.00001) compared with CPT alone. However, this study cannot provide evidence that loading the injectable SP based on CPT can significantly increase the efficacy due to the insufficient number of studies included. In terms of adverse events, there was no statistically significant difference between the experimental group and the control group. Conclusions. This study shows that oral SP may be effective and safe in the treatment of AS. Due to the low methodological quality of the included RCTs and the limitations of the meta-analysis, it is still necessary to carry out more multicenter, large-sample, and high-quality RCTs to further verify the conclusions. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018099170), and the review was constructed following the PRISMA guidelines (Annex 1).

scholarly journals Activity and Safety of Tegafur, Gimeracil, and Oteracil Potassium for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Ximing Zhang ◽  
Xiumei Tian ◽  
Yuezi Wei ◽  
Hao Deng ◽  
Lichun Ma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Adverse Reactions ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
China National Knowledge Infrastructure ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

In clinical practice, tegafur, gimeracil, and oteracil potassium (S-1) therapy is commonly administered to treat nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). However, its efficacy and safety remain controversial in both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of S-1 treatment for NPC. We searched PubMed, Ovid, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, and VIP databases for RCTs of chemotherapy with or without S-1 for NPC, from 2001 to 2020. A meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5.3 and Stata15. Randomized controlled trials published in journals were included irrespective of blinding and language used. Patients were diagnosed with NPC through a clinicopathological examination; patients of all cancer stages and ages were included. Overall, 25 trials and 1858 patients were included. There were significant differences in the complete remission (OR = 2.42, 95% CI (1.88–3.10), P < 0.05 ) and overall response rate (OR = 2.68, 95% CI (2.08–3.45), P < 0.05 ) between the S-1 and non-S-1 groups. However, there was no significant difference in partial remission (OR = 1.10, 95% CI (0.87–1.39), P = 0.42 ) and seven adverse reactions (leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, dermatitis, oral mucositis, and anemia) between the S-1 and non-S-1 groups. Additionally, statistical analyses with six subgroups were performed. S-1 was found to be a satisfactory chemotherapeutic agent combined with radiotherapy, intravenous chemotherapy, or chemoradiotherapy for NPC. As an oral medicine, the adverse reactions of S-1, especially gastrointestinal reactions, can be tolerated by patients, thereby optimizing their quality of life. S-1 may be a better choice for the treatment of NPC. This trial is registered with CRD42019122041.

Efficacy and Safety of Sublingual Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis in Pediatric Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bohai Feng ◽  
Jueting Wu ◽  
Bobei Chen ◽  
Haijie Xiang ◽  
Ruru Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Pediatric Patients ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Symptom Relief ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Symptom Scores

Background Allergic rhinitis (AR) has become a global health problem that constantly affects a large part of the general population, especially children. Objective Sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) has been used extensively for pediatric AR, although its efficacy and safety are often questioned. In this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT), we evaluated the use of SLIT for pediatric AR. Methods A number of medical literature data bases were searched through January 2016 to identify RCTs that examined the use of SLIT for pediatric AR and that assessed clinical outcomes related to efficacy. Descriptive and quantitative information was abstracted. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated by using fixed- and random-effects models. Subgroup analyses were performed. Heterogeneity was assessed by using the I2 metric. A network meta-analysis was used to estimate SMDs between two SLIT protocols for pediatric seasonal AR. All data were extracted from publications or received from the authors. Results Twenty-six studies were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis of rhinitis or rhinoconjunctivitis symptom scores, and 19 studies were eligible for the meta-analysis of medication scores. Descriptive and quantitative data were extracted. SLIT differed significantly from placebo in terms of symptom scores (SMD -0.55 [95% confidence interval {CI}, -0.86 to -0.25]; p = 0.0003, I2 = 90%) and medication scores (SMD -0.67 [95% CI, -0.96 to -0.38J; p < 0.00001, I2 = 83%). Oral pruritus was the adverse effect, which occurred most commonly in children who were receiving SLIT. Network meta-analysis revealed no significant difference between the pre-coseasonal and continuous SLIT protocols for seasonal AR in symptom scores (SMD -6.55 [95% CI, -25.38 to 12.29]; p = 0.496) and medication scores (SMD -8.83 [95% CI, -22.10 to 4.43]; p = 0.192). Conclusions Our meta-analysis results indicated that SLIT provided significant symptom relief and reduced the need for medication in pediatric patients Moreover, the safety of SLIT needs to be confirmed in RCTs with larger samples.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Bevacizumab in the Treatment of Pterygium: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yi Sun ◽  
Bowen Zhang ◽  
Xiuhua Jia ◽  
Shiqi Ling ◽  
Juan Deng
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Conjunctival Autograft ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Purpose. Studies investigating efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in pterygium have increased and reported controversial results. Thus, we updated this meta-analysis to clarify the issue. Methods. Studies were selected through search of the databases Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from their inception up until June 2017. The pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for recurrence and complication rates by using random effects model. Results. 1045 eyes in 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolled. Overall, the pooled estimate showed a statistically significant effect of bevacizumab on the reduction of recurrence (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56–0.97, P=0.03). Subgroup analyses presented significant results beneficial to bevacizumab (primary pterygium group, RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33–0.83, P=0.006; conjunctival autograft group, RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25–0.91, P=0.02; and follow-up longer than 12 months group, RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.13–0.99, P=0.05). No statistically significant difference was observed in complication rates. Conclusions. Application of bevacizumab showed a statistically significant decrease in recurrence rate following removal of primary pterygia, or in cases with conjunctival autograft, or with follow-up longer than 12 months, while complications were not increased.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Oncolytic Viruses in Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 1416 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zengbin Li ◽  
Zeju Jiang ◽  
Yingxuan Zhang ◽  
Xiaotian Huang ◽  
Qiong Liu
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Objective Response Rate ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Oncolytic Viruses ◽  
Oncolytic Virotherapy ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Oncolytic virotherapy is a promising antitumor therapeutic strategy. It is based on the ability of viruses to selectively kill cancer cells and induce host antitumor immune responses. However, the clinical outcomes of oncolytic viruses (OVs) vary widely. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to illustrate the efficacy and safety of oncolytic viruses. The Cochrane Library, PubMed, and EMBASE databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to 31 January 2020. The data for objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs) were independently extracted by two investigators from 11 studies that met the inclusion criteria. In subgroup analyses, the objective response rate benefit was observed in patients treated with oncolytic DNA viruses (odds ratio (OR) = 4.05; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.96–8.33; p = 0.0002), but not in those treated with oncolytic RNA viruses (OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.66–1.52, p = 0.99). Moreover, the intratumoral injection arm yielded a statistically significant improvement (OR = 4.05, 95% CI: 1.96–8.33, p = 0.0002), but no such improvement was observed for the intravenous injection arm (OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.66–1.52, p = 0.99). Among the five OVs investigated in RCTs, only talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) effectively prolonged the OS of patients (hazard ratio (HR), 0.79; 95% CI: 0.63–0.99; p = 0.04). None of the oncolytic virotherapies improved the PFS (HR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.85–1.19, p = 0.96). Notably, the pooled rate of severe AEs (grade ≥3) was higher for the oncolytic virotherapy group (39%) compared with the control group (27%) (risk difference (RD), 12%; risk ratio (RR), 1.44; 95% CI: 1.17–1.78; p = 0.0006). This review offers a reference for fundamental research and clinical treatment of oncolytic viruses. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to verify these results.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of interleukin-17A inhibitors in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peng Wang ◽  
Shuo Zhang ◽  
Binwu Hu ◽  
Weijian Liu ◽  
Xiao Lv ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ankylosing Spondylitis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Interleukin 17A ◽  
Mean Differences

AbstractTo assess the efficacy and safety of interleukin (IL)-17A inhibitors in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched up to 5 February 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the efficacy and safety of IL-17A inhibitors in patients with AS. We used a meta-analytic approach to perform a random effects analysis or fixed effects analysis according to heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses between studies included medication, time to primary endpoint, and data source. Odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MDs) were used to assess the efficacy and safety of IL-17A inhibitors in AS. A total of ten RCTs with 2613 patients were eligible for inclusion in the analysis (six for secukinumab, two for ixekizumab, one for netakimab, and one for bimekizumab). Compared to placebo, IL-17A inhibitors improved ASAS20 response rate (OR = 2.58; p < 0.01) and ASAS40 response rate (OR = 2.80; p < 0.01), and significantly increased the risk of AEs (OR = 1.23; p = 0.03) and nasopharyngitis (OR = 1.72; p < 0.01), but not SAEs (OR = 0.87; p = 0.60). IL-17A inhibitors demonstrated better efficacy in patients with AS in several evaluation indicators. However, the safety of IL-17A inhibitors remains to be further studied in studies with larger sample size and longer follow-up times.

scholarly journals Hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bahman Amani ◽  
Ahmad Khanijahani ◽  
Behnam Amani
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

AbstractThe efficacy and safety of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in treating coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is disputed. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of HCQ in addition to standard of care (SOC) in COVID-19. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of sciences, and medRxiv were searched up to March 15, 2021. Clinical studies registry databases were also searched for identifying potential clinical trials. The references list of the key studies was reviewed to identify additional relevant resources. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and Jadad checklist. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software (version 5.3). Eleven randomized controlled trials with a total number of 8161 patients were identified as eligible for meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed between the two treatment groups in terms of negative rate of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (Risk ratio [RR]: 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90, 1.08; P = 0.76), PCR negative conversion time (Mean difference [MD]: − 1.06, 95% CI − 3.10, 0.97; P = 0.30), all-cause mortality (RR: 1.09, 95% CI 1.00, 1.20; P = 0.06), body temperature recovery time (MD: − 0.64, 95% CI − 1.37, 0.10; P = 0.09), length of hospital stay (MD: − 0.17, 95% CI − 0.80, 0.46; P = 0.59), use of mechanical ventilation (RR: 1.12, 95% CI 0.95, 1.32; P = 0.19), and disease progression (RR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.37, 1.85; P = 0.64). However, there was a significant difference between two groups regarding adverse events (RR: 1.81, 95% CI 1.36, 2.42; P < 0.05). The findings suggest that the addition of HCQ to SOC has no benefit in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Additionally, it is associated with more adverse events.

scholarly journals Hydroxychloroquine plus standard care compared with the standard care alone in COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bahman Amani ◽  
Ahmad Khanijahani ◽  
Behnam Amani
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

AbstractBackground & ObjectiveThe efficacy and safety of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in treating coronavirus disease COVID-19 pandemic is disputed. This study aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of HCQ plus the standard of care in COVID-19 patients.MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, and web of sciences were searched up to June 1, 2020. The references list of the key studies was reviewed for additional relevant resources. Clinical studies registry databases were searched for identifying potential clinical trials. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software (version 5.3).ResultsThree randomized controlled trials with total number of 242 patients were identified eligible for meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed between HCQ and standard care in terms of viral clearance (Risk ratio [RR] = 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.91, 1.16; P = 0.68), disease progression (RR = 0.92; 95% CI = 0.10, 0.81; P = 0.94), Chest CT (RR = 1.40; 95% CI = 1.03, 1.91; P = 0.03). There is a significant difference between HCQ and standard care for adverse events (RR = 2.88; 95% CI = 1.50, 5.54; P = 0.002).ConclusionAlthough the current meta-analysis failed to confirm the efficacy and safety of HCQ in the treatment of COVID-19 patients, further rigorous randomized clinical trials are necessary to evaluate conclusively the efficacy and safety of HCQ against COVID-19.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Tripterygium Wilfordii Hook F on Psoriasis Vulgaris: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meng Lv ◽  
Jingwen Deng ◽  
Nan Tang ◽  
Yuejin Zeng ◽  
Chuanjian Lu
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Combination Treatment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Tripterygium Wilfordii ◽  
Tripterygium Wilfordii Hook F ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Tripterygium Wilfordii Hook

Background. Psoriasis is a chronic autoimmune-mediated skin disease that is characterized by persistent localized erythematous scaly plaque. Tripterygium wilfordii Hook F (TwHF), a well-known Chinese medicine that has been used for centuries in China to treat immune diseases, inflammation, and tumor, is accompanied by a degree of toxic effects. Its clinical efficacy and safety on psoriasis are incompletely understood. Aim. To summarize evidence concerning the efficacy and safety of TwHF in treating psoriasis. Methods. EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science, Springer, Cochrane Library, CNKI, CBM, Wanfang, and VIP database were searched up to October 2017. The included literature was assessed and extracted by two independent reviewers. To enhance the available evidence, a systematic review was performed to examine all relevant published literature relating to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of TwHF. Relative ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, and a meta-analysis was conducted with RevMan 5.3 software. Results. Twenty eligible RCTs with 1872 participants were included for systematic review and meta-analysis. Studies were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The meta-analysis of add-on effect of TwHF conferred benefit for psoriasis: combination treatment with compound glycyrrhizin (four studies, OR = 0.34, 95% CI 0.22–0.52, P<0.00001, I2=0%), combination treatment with acitretin (three studies, OR = 0.25, 95% CI 0.10–0.63, P=0.003, I2=50%), and combination treatment with compound amino-polypeptide tablet (three studies, OR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.22–0.63, P=0.0002, I2=0%). Conclusions. Despite several mild side effects of TwHF, there is evidence that TwHF is an effective therapy for psoriasis. However, the conclusions are limited by the small number of included trials. More well-designed RCTs with extensive follow-up periods are warranted to clarify the effects and safety of TwHF in treating psoriasis. Trial Registration. This review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42016041363).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document