Efficacy and Safety of Sofosbuvir-containing Regimens in Chronic Hepatitis C Patients with Genotype 2 and 3: a Comprehensive Analysis of 18 Randomized Controlled Trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haozhi Fan ◽  
Peng Huang ◽  
Ting Tian ◽  
Jingjing Wu ◽  
Xueshan Xia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatitis C ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Svr12 Rate ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Genotype 2 ◽  
Ns5b Polymerase Inhibitor ◽  
Hcv Ns5b

Background and Aim: Sofosbuvir is a hepatitis C virus (HCV) NS5B polymerase inhibitor. The objective of this study was to explore the efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir for HCV genotype (GT) 2 and 3 infected patients.Method: We searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which analyzed the efficacy and safety of sofosbuvircontaining regimens for HCV GT 2/3 infected patients and collected data. The endpoints were sustained virological response 12- and 24-weeks after the cessation of therapy (SVR12 and SVR24), the adverse events (AEs) and the severe adverse events (SAEs).Results: Eighteen trials comprising 2,975 HCV GT 2/3 infected patients were included. The pooled estimate SVR12, SVR24, AEs and SAEs rates were 84.6% (95% CI: 83.2-86.0), 83.7% (95% CI: 82.0-85.2), 83.8 (95% CI: 82.3-85.3) and 3.9 (95% CI: 3.2-4.8). The SVR12 rate of sofosbuvir-containing regimens for HCV GT 2 infection was higher than that for HCV GT 3 infection (95.7% vs. 80.8%). The sofosbuvir combined with velpatasvir (with or without ribavirin) regimen presented a higher SVR12 rate and lower AEs rate than the sofosbuvir combined with ribavirin (with or without peg-IFN) regimen (94.9% vs. 80.7% for SVR12 rate; 69.3% vs. 87.7% for AEs rate).Conclusions: The sofosbuvir-containing regimens in patients with HCV GT 2 infection have better efficacy than in patients with HCV GT 3 infection.

Efficacy and Safety of Non-Steroidal Anti-Androgens in Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammed Rashid ◽  
Madhan Ramesh ◽  
K. Shamshavali ◽  
Amit Dang ◽  
Himanshu Patel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the sixth primary cause of cancer death. However, conflicts are present about the efficacy and safety of Non-steroidal anti-androgens (NSAA) for its treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of NSAAs versus any comparator for the treatment of advanced or metastatic PCa (mPCa). Methodology: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched. References of included studies and clinicaltrials.gov were also searched for relevant studies. Only English language studies after 1990 were considered for review. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy and safety of NSAAs as compared with any other comparator including surgery or chemotherapy in mPCa patients were included. The outcomes include efficacy, safety and the tolerability of the treatment. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used for quality assessment. Two authors were independently involved in the selection, extraction and quality assessment of included studies and disagreements were resolved by discussion or by consulting a third reviewer. Results: Fifty-eight out of 1307 non-duplicate RCTs with 29154 patients were considered for the review. NSAA showed significantly better progression-free survival [PFS] (Hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-0.78; P=0.0001), time to distant metastasis or death [TTD] (HR, 0.80; 95% CI 0.73-0.91; p<0.0001), objective response (Odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% CI 1.06-2.54; P=0.03) and clinical benefits (OR, 1.33; 95% CI 1.08-1.63; P=0.006) as compared to the control group. There was no significant difference observed between the groups in terms of overall survival (HR, 0.95; 95%CI, 0.87-1.03; P=0.18) and time to progression (HR, 0.93; 95% CI 0.77-1.11; P=0.43). Treatment-related adverse events were more with the NSAA group, but the discontinuation due to lack of efficacy reason was 43% significantly lesser than the control group in patients with mPCa. Rest of the outcomes were appeared to be non-significant. Conclusion: Treatment with NSAA was appeared to be better efficacious with respect to PFS, TTD, and response rate with considerable adverse events when compared to the control group in patients with metastatic PCa.

scholarly journals Topical Diclofenac Solution for Osteoarthritis of the Knee: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Tao Ling ◽  
Jiao Jiao Li ◽  
Rui-Juan Xu ◽  
Bin Wang ◽  
Wei-Hong Ge
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Physical Function ◽  
Vehicle Control ◽  
Womac Pain ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Skin Reactions ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Topical Diclofenac

This study was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of a topical diclofenac solution in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched for randomized controlled trials until June 2020. The WOMAC pain, stiffness, physical function subscales, pain on walking, and the occurrence of adverse events were pooled to comprehensively analyse the efficacy and safety of topical diclofenac solution. All statistical analyses were conducted using Review Manager 5.3 software. Five RCTs were included, which provided high-quality evidence. In comparison to the vehicle control, the mean differences for WOMAC pain, stiffness, and physical function subscales, as well as pain on walking, were all statistically significant in favor of topical diclofenac solution. The safety of topical diclofenac solution was similar to the vehicle control, apart from adverse events involving application-site skin reactions. Topical diclofenac solution is effective and safe for use in patients with knee OA, but may cause minor skin reactions.

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 Pridopidine for the Improvement of Motor Function in Patients With Huntington's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shujun Chen ◽  
Tianyu Liang ◽  
Tao Xue ◽  
Shouru Xue ◽  
Qun Xue
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Huntington's Disease ◽  
Huntington’S Disease ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Motor Score ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Background: Huntington's disease (HD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder. Generally, it is characterized by deficits in cognition, behavior, and movement. Recent studies have shown that pridopidine is a potential and effective drug candidate for the treatment of HD. In the present study, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pridopidine in HD.Methods: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which had that evaluated pridopidine therapy in HD patients.Results: We pooled data from 1,119 patients across four RCTs. Patients in the pridopidine group had a significantly lower Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale (UHDRS)-modified Motor Score (mMS) (MD −0.79, 95% CI = −1.46 to −0.11, p = 0.02) than those in the placebo group. Additionally, no differences were observed in the UHDRS-Total Motor Score (TMS) (MD −0.91. 95% CI = −2.03 to 0.21, p = 0.11) or adverse events (RR 1.06, 95% CI = 0.96 to 1.16, p = 0.24) in the pridopidine and placebo groups. In the subgroup analysis, the short-term (≤12 weeks) and long-term (&gt;12 weeks) subgroups exhibited similar efficacy and safety with no statistical significance in TMS, mMS, or adverse events. However, TMS (MD −1.50, 95% CI = −2.87 to −0.12, p = 0.03) and mMS (MD −1.03, 95% CI = −1.87 to −0.19, p = 0.02) were observed to be improved significantly when the dosage of pridopidine ≥90 mg/day. Additionally, pridopidine (≥90 mg/day) increased total adverse events (RR 1.11, 95% CI = 1.00 to 1.22, p = 0.04) compared with placebo. On this basis, we analyzed the incidence of various adverse events when the dosage was ≥90 mg/day. Nonetheless, these results were within the acceptable threshold, although patients developed symptoms, such as nasopharyngitis and insomnia.Conclusion: Pridopidine improved mMS and had no statistical significance in association with TMS or adverse events. Pridopidine (≥90 mg/day) improved TMS and mMS but increased adverse events, such as nasopharyngitis and insomnia. More RCTs were expected to assess pridopidine in HD.

Efficacy and Safety of Methylnaltrexone for the Treatment of Opioid-Induced Constipation: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ying-Ying Zhang ◽  
Rong Zhou ◽  
Wan-Jie Gu
Keyword(s):  
Abdominal Pain ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Safety Outcome ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Safety Outcomes

Abstract Background: Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a distressing side effect during opioid analgesia and is mainly mediated by gastrointestinal μ opioid receptors. Methylnaltrexone, a peripheral μ opioid receptor antagonist with restricted ability to cross the blood-brain barrier, may alleviate OIC without reversing analgesia. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of methylnaltrexone for the treatment of OIC.Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials that compared methylnaltrexone with placebo for the treatment of OIC. The primary efficacy outcome was rescue-free bowel movement (RFBM) within 4 hours after the first dose. Secondary efficacy outcomes included RFBM within 24 hours after the first dose, RFBM ≥3 times per week, and need take rescue laxatives. The primary safety outcome was any adverse events. Secondary safety outcomes included abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and flatulence. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were pooled using random-effects model with the intention-to-treat principle. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.Results: Eight trials with 2,034 participants were included. Compared with placebo, methylnaltrexone significantly increased RFBM within 4 hours after the first dose (8 trials; 1,833 participants; RR 3.74, 95% CI 3.02-4.62; I2 = 0%; high-certainty evidence), RFBM within 24 hours after the first dose (2 trials; 614 participants; RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.52-2.58; I2 = 9%; moderate-certainty evidence), and RFBM ≥3 times per week (3 trials; 1,396 participants; RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.17-1.52; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) and decreased need to take rescue laxatives (3 trials; 807 participants; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.63-0.85; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For safety outcomes, there was no difference in any adverse events between the two groups (8 trials; 2,034 participants; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.99-1.23; I2 = 34%; moderate-certainty evidence), including diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and flatulence; but for the most commonly reported adverse events, the abdominal pain was higher in methylnaltrexone group than that in placebo group (6 trials; 1,813 participants; RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.29-4.08; I2 = 62%; moderate-certainty evidence).Conclusions: Methylnaltrexone is an effective and safe drug for treating OIC. But the safety of abdominal pain should be considered.Trial registration: PROSPERO (CRD42020187290).

scholarly journals Assessing the Short-Term Efficacy and Safety of Guselkumab for Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Jing Yang ◽  
Zongming Wang ◽  
Xilin Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Plaque Psoriasis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Severe Plaque Psoriasis ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Background. To investigate the efficacy and safety of guselkumab in the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Methods. A systematic review was undertaken to identify double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs). PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases were searched before 1 March 2020. The odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. All analyses were conducted with intention-to-treat basis. A range of sensitivity analyses was undertaken. Results. A total of 7 articles contained 1206 plaque psoriasis patients with guselkumab, 585 patients with placebo, and 1250 patients with adalimumab were included. The results indicated that guselkumab had better efficacy than placebo or adalimumab for Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score reductions from baseline of 75% (PASI 75) (OR=61.37, 95% CI=31.15 to 120.91; OR=3.08, 95% CI=2.35 to 4.06), Investigator’s Global Assessment scores of 0 or 1 (IGA 0/1) (OR=65.75, 95% CI=45.54 to 94.95; OR=2.79, 95% CI=2.17 to 3.59), and Dermatology Life Quality Index scores of 0 or 1 (DLQI 0/1) (OR=29.64, 95% CI=18.80 to 46.73; OR=1.86, 95% CI=1.50 to 2.31). The guselkumab had similar safety with placebo or adalimumab about the incidence of adverse events (AEs) (OR=1.05, 95% CI=0.86 to 1.29; OR=0.97, 95% CI=0.79 to 1.19) and serious adverse events (SAEs) (OR=1.03, 95% CI=0.47 to 2.27; OR=0.91, 95% CI=0.44 to 1.87). Meanwhile, there was no statistically significant association of infections and serious infections compared with the placebo or adalimumab group. The guselkumab was more effective and had the similar tolerance. Conclusion. The guselkumab had excellent efficacy and great safety in moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, but long-term safety remained to be determined.

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 Benefits and Risks of Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine in The Treatment of Viral Diseases: A Meta-Analysis of Placebo Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Wang ◽  
Li Yu ◽  
Kefeng Li
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Viral Diseases ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Increased Risk

AbstractBackground and ObjectiveRecently, in the scramble to find drugs to treat COVID-19, chloroquine (CQ) and its derivative hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have rapidly gained the public’s attention. In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CQ and HCQ in the treatment of viral diseases.MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, Clinical Trials Registries, CNKI, Wanfang Data, CQVIP, and Preprint Servers through April 4, 2020, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the efficacy and safety of CQ and HCQ against viral infection. We analyzed pooled data on the overall efficacy, the relative risks over the placebo, and the prevalence of adverse events. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was also performed to evaluate the random errors in the meta-analysis. Potential moderators of drug-placebo efficacy differences were analyzed by meta-regression.ResultsThe analysis included 11 RCTs with 2613 adult patients. Both the plasma viral load (standard mean difference: 0.29, 95% CI: −1.19 - 1.76, P = 0.70) and the improvement of clinical symptoms (odds ratio: 2.36, 95% CI: 0.81 - 6.92, P = 0.11) were not different between the intervention and placebo arm. There was significant heterogeneity for the efficacy assessment, which was primarily explained by the mean patients’ age and the sample size. Compared to the placebo, CQ and HCQ had increased risk of mild adverse events (risk ratio: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.35 - 1.70, P < 0.05, TSA adjusted 95% CI: 1.31 - 2.19), which were statistically significant in nervous, integumentary, and gastrointestinal systems. The most common adverse events were observed in the nervous system, with the pooled prevalence of 31.4 % (95% CI: 10.5% - 56.7%).ConclusionsInsufficient data were available to support the antiviral efficacy of CQ and HCQ due to the high heterogeneity caused by patients’ age. Mild side effects are expected for the current antiviral dose regimens of CQ and HCQ. Treatment outcomes may be enhanced by better-selected patients based on age and well-controlled adverse events.This meta-analysis was registered on OSF (ID: https://osf.io/386aw)

Efficacy and safety of IL-17 inhibitors for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yufeng Yin ◽  
Mingjun Wang ◽  
Mengru Liu ◽  
Erye Zhou ◽  
Tian Ren ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ankylosing Spondylitis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Infectious Diseases ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
End Point ◽  
Increased Risk

Abstract Objectives: To systematically assess the efficacy and safety of IL-17 inhibitors in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis.Methods: Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning IL-17 inhibitors in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. The efficacy and safety of the IL-17 inhibitors in the treatment of these patients were compared to those of a placebo. The primary end point was predefined as the proportion of patients with at least 20% improvement in the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS20) response criteria at week 16, and the secondary end point was defined as ASAS40 at week 16.Results: Six phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials including 1733 patients (1153 patients received IL-17 inhibitors, including secukinumab or ixekizumab, whereas 580 patients received a placebo as comparators) were included. At week 16, the IL-17 inhibitor regimen produced a significant increase in the ASAS20 response rate (RR=1.63, 95% CI 1.45 to 1.84, p=0.00) and the secondary endpoint ASAS40 response rate (RR=2.12, 95% CI 1.75 to 2.56, p=0.00) versus those for the placebo. With respect to the safety profile, more infectious diseases were described after treatment with IL-17 inhibitors than after treatment with placebo (RR=1.82, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.37, p<0.001), while no increased risk of other adverse events was indicated after IL-17 inhibitor therapy, including treatment-emergent adverse events, death, discontinuation due to adverse event, serious adverse events, or total adverse events.Conclusions: IL-17 inhibitors produced favourable response rates but an increased risk of infectious diseases in the treatment of active ankylosing spondylitis.

scholarly journals Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Propranolol in the Prevention and Treatment of Retinopathy of Prematurity: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haibo B. Kong ◽  
Guoyuan Y. Zheng ◽  
Baomei M. He ◽  
Ying Zhang ◽  
Qin Zhou
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Retinopathy Of Prematurity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Second Phase ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Risk Of Disease ◽  
Term Newborns

Objective: To perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials verifying clinical efficacy and safety of propranolol in pre-term newborns with retinopathy of prematurity (ROP).Methods: We searched the literature databases (Pubmed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang, VIP, CBM) for publications before August 10, 2020, and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of propranolol for the prevention or treatment of ROP were included. The quality of the included studies was primarily assessed by the RCT tool of the Cochrane Collaboration. The included studies were quantified using a meta-analysis of relative risk (RR) estimated with a random effect model.Results: Our original search identified 171 articles, and five studies met our criteria. A meta-analysis was performed that showed that infants orally treated with propranolol had a decreased risk of disease progression: stage progression had an RR = 0.65 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.47–0.88]), plus disease had an RR = 0.43 [95% CI, 0.22–0.82]. The demands for additional treatments had similar protective results: laser photocoagulations had an RR = 0.55 [95% CI, 0.35–0.86]), and intravitreal injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor had an RR = 0.45 [95% CI, 0.22–0.90]). The oral administration of propranolol was associated with an increased risk of adverse events (RR = 2.01 [95% CI, 1.02–3.97]). High-risk adverse events included bradycardia, hypotension, not gaining enough weight, bronchospasm, hypoglycemia, apnea, and increasing ventilator need. Subgroup analysis of ROP phases and stages found that the risk in stage 2 ROP of the second phase and the individual risk factors (stage progression, RR = 0.42 [95% CI, 0.27–0.65]; plus disease, RR = 0.40 [95% CI, 0.17–0.93]; laser photocoagulation, RR = 0.31 [95% CI, 0.14–0.68]) have statistically significant differences compared with other phases and stages.Conclusions: Pre-term newborns with ROP, especially in stage 2 ROP of the second phase, who were orally given propranolol have a reduced risk of disease progression and demand for additional treatments, but the safety needs more attention.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document