scholarly journals Direct comparisons of efficacy and safety between actinomycin-D and methotrexate in women with low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia: a meta-analysis of randomized and high-quality non-randomized studies

BMC Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiatao Hao ◽  
Weihua Zhou ◽  
Mengzhao Zhang ◽  
Hui Yu ◽  
Taohong Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Complete Remission ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Actinomycin D ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background Actinomycin-D (Act-D) and Methotrexate (MTX) are both effective first-line agents for low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (LRGTN) with no consensus regarding which is more effective or less toxic. The primary objective of this meta-analysis is to compare Act-D with MTX in the treatment of LRGTN. Methods We systematically searched electronic databases, conferences abstracts and trial registries for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and high-quality non-randamized controlled trials (non-RCTs), comparing Act-D with MTX for patients with LRGTN. Studies were full-text screened for quality assessment and data extraction. Eligible studies must have reported complete remission rate. A fixed-effects meta-analysis was conducted to quantify the efficacy and safety of Act-D and MTX on odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs), respectively. Results A total of 8 RCTs and 9 non-RCTs (1674 patients) were included. In terms of efficacy, Act-D is superior to MTX in complete remission (80.2% [551/687] vs 65.1% [643/987]; OR 2.15, 95%CI 1.70 to 2.73). In the stratified analysis, patients from RCTs and non-RCTs both had a better complete remission from Act-D-based regimen (RCTs: 81.2% [259/319] vs 66.1% [199/301], OR 2.17, 95%CI 1.49 to 3.16; non-RCTs: 79.3% [292/368] vs 65.0% [444/686], OR 2.14, 95%CI 1.57 to 2.92). In terms of safety, patients receiving Act-D had higher risks of suffering nausea (OR 2.35, 95%CI 1.68 to 3.27), vomiting (OR 2.40, 95%CI 1.63 to 3.54), and alopecia (OR 2.76, 95%CI 1.60 to 4.75). Notably, liver toxicity (OR 0.38, 95%CI 0.19 to 0.76) was the only one that was conformed to have a higher risk for patients receiving MTX. In addition, the pooled results showed no significant difference of anaemia, leucocytopenia, neutropenia, thrombocytopnia, constipation, diarrhea, anorexia, and fatigue between Act-D and MTX. Conclusions Our meta-analysis suggests that Act-D had better efficacy profile in general, and MTX had less toxicities in LRGTN. Future clinical trials should be better orchestrated to provide more valid data on efficacy and toxicity.

scholarly journals Direct Comparisons of Efficacy and Safety Between Actinomycin-D and Methotrexate in Women With Low-Risk Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiatao Hao ◽  
Weihua Zhou ◽  
Mengzhao Zhang ◽  
Hui Yu ◽  
Taohong Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Complete Remission ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Actinomycin D ◽  
Remission Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background: Actinomycin-D (Act-D) and Methotrexate (MTX) are both effective first-line agents for low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (LRGTN) with no consensus regarding which is more effective or less toxic. The primary objective of this meta-analysis is to compare Act-D with MTX in the treatment of LRGTN.Methods: We systematically searched electronic databases, conferences abstracts and trial registries for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and high-quality non-randamized controlled trials (non-RCTs), comparing Act-D with MTX for patients with LRGTN. Studies were full-text screened for quality assessment and data extraction. Eligible studies must have reported complete remission rate. A fixed-effects meta-analysis was conducted to quantify the efficacy and safety of Act-D and MTX on odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs), respectively.Results: A total of 8 RCTs and 9 non-RCTs (1674 patients) were included. In terms of efficacy, Act-D is superior to MTX in complete remission (OR 2.15, 95%CI 1.70 to 2.73). In the stratified analysis, patients from RCTs and non-RCTs both had a better CR from Act-D-based regimen (RCTs: OR 2.17, 95%CI 1.49 to 3.16; non-RCTs: OR 2.14, 95%CI 1.57 to 2.92). In terms of safety, patients receiving Act-D had higher risks of suffering nausea (OR 2.35, 95%CI 1.68 to 3.27), vomiting (OR 2.40, 95%CI 1.63 to 3.54), and alopecia (OR 2.76, 95%CI 1.60 to 4.75). Notably, liver toxicity (OR 0.38, 95%CI 0.19 to 0.76) was the only one that was conformed to have a higher risk for patients receiving MTX. In addition, the pooled results showed no significant difference of anaemia, leucocytopenia, neutropenia, thrombocytopnia, constipation, diarrhea, anorexia, and fatigue between Act-D and MTX.Conclusions: Our meta-analysis suggests that Act-D had better efficacy profile in general, and MTX had less toxicities in LRGTN. Future clinical trials should be better orchestrated to provide more valid data on efficacy and toxicity.

Five-Day Intravascular Methotrexate Versus Biweekly Actinomycin-D in the Treatment of Low-Risk Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia: A Clinical Randomized Trial

2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 971-976 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fariba Yarandi ◽  
Azamsadat Mousavi ◽  
Fereshteh Abbaslu ◽  
Soheila Aminimoghaddam ◽  
Sepideh Nekuie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Complete Remission ◽  
Actinomycin D ◽  
Remission Rate ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Multiple Drug ◽  
Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia ◽  
First Line ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

ObjectivesMethotrexate (MTX) and Actinomycin-D (Act-D) are effective drugs used in the treatment of low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (LRGTNs). The aim of the present study was to compare intravenous (IV) MTX and IV Act-D in the treatment of LRGTNs.Materials and MethodsSixty-two patients with LRGTN were enrolled in a prospective randomized clinical trial between 2010 and 2013 in Moheb e Yas Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Primary treatment regimens were IV MTX, 0.4 mg/kg daily for 5 days every 14 days (25 mg maximum daily dose), and IV Act-D, 1.25 mg/m2 (2 mg maximum dose) every 14 days.ResultsThirty-two and 30 patients were enrolled to MTX and Act-D groups, respectively. Complete remission after receiving first-line chemotherapy was achieved in 79% of all cases, 80% in the Act-D group and 78.1% in the MTX group.Twenty percent of the Act-D patients and 21.9% of the MTX patients showed resistance to the first-line chemotherapy, of which 16.7% and 15.6% responded completely to the second-line monotherapy, respectively. Multiple drug therapy was needed in 3.3% of the Act-D group and 6.3% of the MTX group.We did not find any correlation between treatment response and beta–human chorionic gonadotropin level, uterine mass size, lung metastasis, antecedent pregnancy, and duration from diagnosis to treatment. Adverse effects were not statistically different between the 2 groups.ConclusionsSingle-agent chemotherapy in the treatment of LRGTNs resulted in an overall complete remission rate of 79%, 80% in the Act-D group and 78.1% in MTX group, with no statistically significant difference. Whereas this study represents an important step in comparing single-agent treatments, comparison of other regimens will be required to determine the optimal single-agent therapy.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for the prevention of pneumocystis pneumonia in human immunodeficiency virus-negative immunodeficient patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. e0248524
Author(s):  
Rui Li ◽  
Zhiyong Tang ◽  
Fu Liu ◽  
Ming Yang
Keyword(s):  
Human Immunodeficiency Virus ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Pneumocystis Pneumonia ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Drug Discontinuation ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Immunodeficiency Virus ◽  
Hiv Negative

Background Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) has a significant impact on the mortality of immunocompromised patients. It is not known whether the prophylactic application of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMZ) can reduce the incidence of PCP and mortality in the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-negative immunodeficient population. The safety profile is also unknown. There have been few reports on this topic. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of the use of TMP-SMZ for the prevention of PCP in this population of patients from the perspective of evidence-based medicine. Methods A comprehensive search without restrictions on publication status or other parameters was conducted. Clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or case-control trials (CCSs) of TMP-SMZ used for the prevention of PCP in HIV-negative immunocompromised populations were considered eligible. A meta-analysis was performed using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effects model or Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model, and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and reported. Results Of the 2392 records identified, 19 studies (n = 4135 patients) were included. The efficacy analysis results indicated that the PCP incidence was lower in the TMP-SMZ group than in the control group (OR = 0.27, 95% CI (0.10, 0.77), p = 0.01); however, the rate of drug discontinuation was higher in the TMP-SMZ group than in the control group (OR = 14.31, 95% CI (4.78, 42.91), p<0.00001). In addition, there was no statistically significant difference in the rate of mortality between the two groups (OR = 0.54, 95% CI (0.21, 1.37), p = 0.19). The safety analysis results showed that the rate of adverse events (AEs) was higher in the TMP-SMZ group than in the control group (OR = 1.92, 95% CI (1.06, 3.47), p = 0.03). Conclusions TMP-SMZ has a better effect than other drugs or the placebo with regard to preventing PCP in HIV-negative immunocompromised individuals, but it may not necessarily reduce the rate of mortality, the rate of drug discontinuation or AEs. Due to the limitations of the research methodologies used, additional large-scale clinical trials and well-designed research studies are needed to identify more effective therapies for the prevention of PCP.

The Efficacy and Safety of Coenzyme Q10 in Preventing the Progression of Early Parkinson’s Disease: A Meta-Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ranhel C. De Roxas ◽  
Roland Dominic G. Jamora
Keyword(s):  
Parkinson’S Disease ◽  
Parkinson's Disease ◽  
Coenzyme Q10 ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
P Value ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Early Parkinson’S Disease

Introduction. Coenzyme Q10, also known as Ubiquinone, is a substance now being used as a dietary supplement in many countries including the Philippines. It has also been the focus of several researches as treatment for several diseases including Parkinson’s Disease. Several studies have shown that Coenzyme Q10 inhibits mitochondrial dysfunction in Parkinson’s Disease, hence delaying its progression. Objectives. The objective of this study is to assess and summarize the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of Coenzyme Q10 administration in the prevention of the progression of early Parkinson’s Disease. Methods. This is meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the use of Coenzyme Q10 in Parkinson’s Disease. A literature search in several databases was conducted for relevant studies. Three randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. The efficacy of Coenzyme Q10 were measured using the total and the component scores of the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale on follow-up. On the other hand, safety were measured using the withdrawal rate and the associated adverse reactions during the therapy of CoQ10. The Review Manager Software was utilized for the meta-analysis. Results. Compared to Placebo, treatment of CoQ10 did not show any significant difference in the mean scores of the UPDRS mental and ADL scores. Interestingly, the UPDRS motor score showed a significant difference between Coenzyme Q10 and placebo, but no significant difference when a subgroup analysis between high-dose (-4.03 [-15.07-7.01], p-value 0.47, I2 67%, P for heterogeneity 0.08) and low-dose Coenzyme Q10 (0.53 [-0.891.94], p-value 0.47, I2 34%, P for heterogeneity 0.22) was done. Overall, there was no significant difference in the total UPDRS score (0.68 [-0.61-1.97], p-value 0.30, I2 0%, P for heterogeneity 0.70). The most common side effects of the use of Coenzyme Q10 are anxiety, back pain, headache, sore throat, nausea, dizziness and constipation. Conclusion. Contrary to some animal and human studies, this meta-analysis showed that the use of CoQ10 results to nonsignificant improvement in all components of the UPDRS scores as opposed to placebo. However, the use of CoQ10 is tolerated and seems to be safe but further studies are needed to validate this finding.

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).

Efficacy and safety of bempedoic acid in patients with hypercholesterolemia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
pp. 204748732093058 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lei Dai ◽  
Yuyue Zuo ◽  
Qiqi You ◽  
Hesong Zeng ◽  
Shiyi Cao
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Therapeutic Option ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Lipid Lowering ◽  
Oral Drug ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Aim Bempedoic acid is a novel oral drug, which has been increasingly researched to play an important role in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia recently. However, results from original studies were inconsistent and inconclusive. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to quantitatively appraise the efficacy and safety of bempedoic acid. Methods PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus were searched from inception to 30 January 2020. We included randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy and safety of bempedoic acid with placebo in patients with hypercholesterolemia. Results from trials were presented as mean differences or odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and were pooled by random or fixed effects model. The risk of bias and heterogeneity among trials were also assessed and analyzed. Results Pooled analysis of 10 eligible trials showed that bempedoic acid treatment resulted in greater lowering of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level than the placebo group (mean difference –23.16%, 95% CI –26.92% to –19.04%). We also found that improvements in lipid parameters and biomarkers were still maintained at weeks 24 and 52 from the long-term trials. As for safety, bempedoic acid did not increase the risk of overall adverse events (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.18). However, the incidence of adverse events leading to discontinuation was higher in the bempedoic acid group (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.82). Conclusions Available evidence from randomized controlled trials suggests that bempedoic acid provides a well-tolerated and effective therapeutic option for lipid lowering in patients with hyperlipidemia

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Fuzi Formulae on the Treatment of Heart Failure as Complementary Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of High-Quality Randomized Controlled Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Meng-Qi Yang ◽  
Yong-Mei Song ◽  
Huan-Yu Gao ◽  
Yi-Tao Xue
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Link Type

Objective. Heart failure is a major public health problem worldwide nowadays. However, the morbidity, mortality, and awareness of heart failure are not satisfied as well as the status of current treatments. According to the standard treatment for chronic heart failure (CHFST), Fuzi (the seminal root of Aconitum carmichaelii Debx.) formulae are widely used as a complementary treatment for heart failure in clinical practice for a long time. We are aiming to assess the efficacy and safety of Fuzi formulae (FZF) on the treatment of heart failure according to high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods. RCTs in PubMed, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Scientific Journals Database (VIP), and Wanfang Database were searched from their inception until June 2019. In addition, the U.S. National Library of Medicine (clinicaltrials.gov) and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (http://www.chictr.org.cn) were also searched. We included RCTs that test the efficacy and safety of FZF for the treatment of heart failure, compared with placebo, CHFST, or placebo plus CHFST. The methodological quality of included studies were evaluated by the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias. RCTs with Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) score ≥4 were included in the analysis. The meta-analysis was conducted through RevMan 5.2 software. The GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of the evidence. Results. Twelve RCTs with 1490 participants were identified. The studies investigated the efficacy and safety of FZF, such as FZF plus the CHFST vs placebo plus CHFST (n = 4), FZF plus CHFST vs CHFST (n = 6), FZF plus digoxin tablets (DT) plus CHFST vs placebo plus DT plus CHFST (n = 1), and FZF plus placebo plus CHFST vs placebo plus DT plus CHFST (n = 1). Meta-analysis indicated that FZF have additional benefits based on the CHFST in reducing plasma NT-proBNP level, MLHFQ scores, Lee’s heart failure scores (LHFs), and composite cardiac events (CCEs). Meanwhile, it also improved the efficacy on TCM symptoms (TCMs), NYHA functional classification (NYHAfc), 6MWD, and LVEF. Adverse events were reported in 6 out of 12 studies without significant statistical difference. However, after assessing the strength of evidence, it was found that only the quality of evidence for CCEs was high, and the others were either moderate or low or very low. So we could not draw confirmative conclusions on its additional benefits except CCEs. Further clinical trials should be well designed to avoid the issues that were identified in this study. Conclusion. The efficacy and additional benefits of FZF for CCEs were certain according to the high-quality evidence assessed through GRADE. However, the efficacy and additional benefits for the other outcomes were uncertain judging from current studies. In addition, the safety assessment has a great room for improvement. Thus, further research studies are needed to find more convincing proofs.

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.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of daptomycin: systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 204993611988646
Author(s):  
María Teresa Rosanova ◽  
David Bes ◽  
Pedro Serrano-Aguilar ◽  
Norma Sberna ◽  
Estefania Herrera-Ramos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Failure ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Failure Rates ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Fixed Effects Model ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Central Register

Background: The aim of this study was to assess whether daptomycin is safer and more efficacious than comparators for the treatment of serious infection caused by gram-positive microorganisms. Methods: Electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and clinical registered trials) were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the efficacy and safety of daptomycin versus therapy with any other antibiotic comparator. Two reviewers independently applied selection criteria, performed a quality assessment and extracted the data. Heterogeneity was assessed, and a random-effects or fixed-effects model, when appropriate, was used for estimates of risk ratio (RR). The primary outcome assessed was the risk of clinical treatment failure among the intention-to-treat population and the presence of any treatment related adverse event (AEs). Results: A total of seven trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Daptomycin treatment failure rates were no different to comparator regimens (RR = 0.96; CI 95% 0.86–1.06). No significantly different treatment related AEs were identified when comparing groups (RR = 0.91; CI 95% 0.83–1.01). Conclusions: No significant differences in treatment failure rates and safety were found using daptomycin or any of the comparators treatment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document