Efficacy and Safety of Treatments for Patients With Portal Hypertension and Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Background and Aims: Viral hepatitis are one of the main causes of liver cirrhosis. The treatment of portal hypertension caused by liver cirrhosis is difficult and diverse, and the therapeutic effect is unknown. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of treatments for patients with portal hypertension and cirrhosis, including a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), endoscopic therapy, surgical therapy and medications.Methods: Eligible articles were searched for in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases from their inception until June 2020. Using the “gemtc-0.8.4” package in R v.3.6.3 software and the Just Another Gibbs Sampler v.4.2.0 program, network meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model within a Bayesian framework. The odds ratios for all-cause rebleeding, bleeding-related mortality, overall survival (OS), treatment failure and hepatic encephalopathy were determined within the Bayesian framework.Results: Forty randomized controlled trials were identified, including 4,006 adult patients and nine treatment strategies. Our results showed that distal splenorenal shunt and TIPS provided the best control of hemorrhage. Endoscopic variceal ligation with medication resulted in the highest OS rate. Medication alone resulted in poor OS and treatment failure.Conclusions: We performed a systematic comparison of diverse treatments for cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension. Our meta-analysis indicated that a TIPS and distal splenorenal shunt resulted in lower rates of rebleeding than did other therapies. Furthermore, drugs are more suitable for combination therapy than monotherapy.

Download Full-text

Comparative efficacy and safety of oral or transdermal opioids in the treatment of knee or hip osteoarthritis: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis protocol

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022142 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 8 (10) ◽

pp. e022142

Author(s):

Jun Wang ◽

Yin Wang ◽

Hui Zhang ◽

Ming Lu ◽

Weilu Gao ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Bayesian Network ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Hip Osteoarthritis ◽

Sensitivity Analyses ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

Transdermal Opioids ◽

And Function

IntroductionOsteoarthritis is a common degenerative joint disease that eventually leads to disability and poor quality of life. The main symptoms are joint pain and mobility disorders. If the patient has severe pain or other analgesics are contraindicated, opioids may be a viable treatment option. To evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of opioids in the treatment of knee or hip osteoarthritis, we will integrate direct and indirect evidence using a Bayesian network meta-analysis to establish hierarchies of these drugs.Methods and analysisWe will search the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and PsycINFO databases as well as published and unpublished research in international registries and regulatory agency websites for osteoarthritis reports published prior to 5 January 2018. There will be no restrictions on the language. Randomised clinical trials that compare oral or transdermal opioids with other various opioids, placebo or no treatment for patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis will be included. The primary outcomes of efficacy will be pain and function. We will use pain and function scales to evaluate the main outcomes. The secondary outcomes of safety will be defined as the proportion of patients who have stopped treatment due to side effects. Pairwise meta-analyses and Bayesian network meta-analyses will be performed for all related outcome measures. We will conduct subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of our findings. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework will be used to assess the quality of the evidence contributing to each network assessment.Ethics and disseminationThis study does not require formal ethical approval because individual patient data will not be included. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications or conference presentations.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018085503.

Download Full-text

Comparative efficacy and safety of intra-articular analgesics after knee arthroscopy: a Bayesian network meta-analysis protocol

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035346 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (9) ◽

pp. e035346

Author(s):

Yuchen He ◽

Hongyi He ◽

Dong-Xing Xie ◽

Xiaoxiao Li ◽

Yilun Wang

Keyword(s):

Single Dose ◽

Pain Relief ◽

Bayesian Network ◽

Knee Arthroscopy ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Arthroscopic Surgery ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Comparative Efficacy ◽

Number Of Patients

IntroductionMost of the patients who received arthroscopic knee surgery will suffer moderate to severe pain, which can delay the rehabilitation process and increase the risk of postoperative complications. Therefore, seeking a safe and effective postoperative analgesia is necessary for promoting the application of arthroscopic surgery. This protocol aims to detail a planned systematic review and meta-analysis on the comparative efficacy and safety of single-dose intra-articular injection of analgesics for pain relief after knee arthroscopy.Method and analysisPubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library will be searched from inception to 1 June 2020 to retrieve randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the commonly used single-dose intra-articular analgesics (ie, morphine; bupivacaine (including levobupivacaine); ropivacaine and magnesium alone or in combination) with placebo or between each other for postoperative pain relief among patients who had received knee arthroscopy. The primary outcome is pain intensity at 2-hour and 24-hour postoperatively; the secondary outcomes include side effects (eg, knee effusion, nausea, vomiting and flushing), the number of patients requiring supplementary analgesia and the time to first analgesic request. The methodological quality of the included RCTs will be assessed based on the Cochrane risk of bias table. The Bayesian network meta-analysis will be conducted using WinBUGS V.1.4.3.Ethics and disseminationSince no private or confidential patient data will be contained in the reporting, approval from an ethics committee is not required. Our study raises no ethical issue, and the results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019130876.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and safety of anticoagulants for postoperative thrombophylaxis in total hip and knee arthroplasty: A PRISMA-compliant Bayesian network meta-analysis

PLoS ONE ◽

10.1371/journal.pone.0250096 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 16 (6) ◽

pp. e0250096

Author(s):

Tailai He ◽

Fei Han ◽

Jiahao Wang ◽

Yihe Hu ◽

Jianxi Zhu

Keyword(s):

Molecular Weight ◽

Bayesian Network ◽

Odds Ratio ◽

Low Molecular Weight Heparin ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Low Molecular Weight ◽

Significant Heterogeneity ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Anticoagulant Drugs

Objective To search, review, and analyze the efficacy and safety of various anticoagulants from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of anticoagulants for THA and TKA. Design PRISMA-compliant Bayesian Network Meta-analysis. Data sources and study selection The databases of The Medline, Embase, ClinicalTrial, and Cochrane Library databases were searched until March 2017 for RCTs of patients undergoing a THA or TKA. Main outcomes and measures The primary efficacy measurement was the venous thromboembolism Odds ratio (OR). The safety measurement was the odds ratio of major or clinically relevant bleeding. OR with 95% credibility intervals (95%CrIs) were calculated. Findings were interpreted as associations when the 95%CrIs excluded the null value. Results Thirty-five RCTs (53787 patients; mean age range, mostly 55–70 years; mean weight range, mostly 55–90 kg; and a higher mean proportion of women than men, around 60%) included the following Anticoagulants categories: fondaparinux, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, apixaban, dabigatran, low-molecular-weight heparin, ximelagatran, aspirin, warfarin. Anticoagulants were ranked for effectiveness as follows: fondaparinux (88.89% ± 10.90%), edoxaban (85.87% ± 13.34%), rivaroxaban (86.08% ± 10.23%), apixaban (68.26% ± 10.82%), dabigatran (41.63% ± 12.26%), low-molecular-weight heparin (41.03% ± 9.60%), ximelagatran (37.81% ± 15.87%), aspirin (35.62% ± 20.60%), warfarin (9.89% ± 9.07%), and placebo (4.56% ± 6.37%). Ranking based on clinically relevant bleeding events was as follows: fondaparinux (14.53% ± 15.25%), ximelagatran (18.93% ± 17.49%), rivaroxaban (23.86% ± 15.14%), dabigatran (28.30% ± 14.18%), edoxaban (38.76% ± 24.25%), low-molecular-weight heparin (53.28% ± 8.40%), apixaban (71.81% ± 10.92%), placebo (76.26% ± 14.61%), aspirin (86.32% ± 25.74%), and warfarin (87.95% ± 11.27%). No statistically significant heterogeneity was observed between trials. Conclusions and relevance According to our results, all anticoagulant drugs showed some effectiveness for VTE prophylaxis. Our ranking indicated that fondaparinux and rivaroxaban were safer and more effective than other anticoagulant drugs for patients undergoing THA or TKA.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and safety of different drug monotherapies for tension-type headache in adults: study protocol for a Bayesian network meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023748 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (1) ◽

pp. e023748

Author(s):

Runsheng Xie ◽

Jinhui Tian ◽

Yangyang Wang ◽

Yefeng Cai ◽

Hui Li

Keyword(s):

Bayesian Network ◽

Ethical Issues ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Indirect Evidence ◽

Tension Type Headache ◽

Biomedical Literature ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Evaluation Approach ◽

Type Headache

IntroductionTension-type headache (TTH) is the most prevalent neurological disease, with an estimated 1.5 billion cases worldwide. Pharmacotherapy should be considered by patients with TTH who have a limited response to non-pharmacological treatment. However, recommendations for the vast array of therapeutic drugs for TTH partially overlap, with conflicting recommendations for strength in different guidelines; these may confuse the decision-making process of clinicians. Hence, the aims of this study are to analyse the available direct and indirect evidence on different drug monotherapies for TTH in adults, and to generate a treatment ranking according to their efficacy and safety outcomes by using a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA).Methods and analysisWe will systematically search the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, China Biomedical Literature Database, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and other resources for eligible studies. Randomised controlled trials on different drug monotherapies for TTH will be included. Two review authors (RX and YW) will independently search and select the studies, extract the data and assess the risk of bias. A Bayesian NMA will afterwards be conducted to pool the effect measures across all types of monotherapy drugs. The ranking probabilities of the efficacy and safety of different drug monotherapies will be estimated. Heterogeneity will be quantified using the Q statistic and the I² index. Inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence will be assessed by the node-splitting model. In addition, the overall quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical issues are foreseen. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, which will be disseminated electronically and in print.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018090554.

Download Full-text

Relative Efficacy and Safety of Pharmacotherapeutic Interventions for Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

January 2018 - Pain Physician ◽

10.36076/ppj.2021.24.e1-e14 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 1;24 (1;1) ◽

pp. E1-E14

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Peripheral Neuropathy ◽

Bayesian Network ◽

Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy ◽

Adverse Drug Events ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Pain Reduction ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Relative Efficacy ◽

Efficacy And Safety

BACKGROUND: Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is a most common devitalizing complication of diabetes mellitus, which is primarily characterized by sensory loss, paresthesia, prickling, pain, or allodynia. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of the interventions used in the DPN pain management and rank their order. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). METHODS: Randomized, controlled trials were identified through a comprehensive, systematic literature exploration, primarily utilizing the PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid, and Cochrane Library databases. The efficacy and safety outcomes consist of the proportion of patients reporting either 30% or 50% pain reduction and overall withdrawal or withdrawal due to adverse drug events, respectively. Effect estimates from Bayesian NMA were presented as odds ratio (OR) with 95% credible intervals (CrI). Heterogeneity and convergence were assessed by using I2 and deviation information criteria. The risk of bias was evaluated by using Pedro Scale. RESULTS: A total of 3,246 potentially relevant trials were identified and screened, finally 43 trials consisting of 7,877 randomized patients met the inclusion criteria. Statistically significant treatment difference for 50% pain reduction was reported for duloxetine vs. placebo (OR: 2.50; CrI: 1.62-3.91), mirogabalin vs. placebo (OR: 3.25; CrI: 1.16-9.35), pregabalin vs. placebo (OR: 2.33; CrI: 1.69-3.27), duloxetine vs. carbamazepine (OR: 3.37; CrI: 1.07-10.90), mirogabalin vs. carbamazepine (OR: 4.39; CrI: 1.01-19.63), mirogabalin vs. lamotrigine (OR: 4.05: CrI: 1.07-15.77), pregabalin vs. lamotrigine (OR: 2.90, CrI: 1.19-7.22) and pregabalin vs. nortriptyline (OR: 4.10, CrI: 1.13-5.28). Nortriptyline reported the highest possibility of achieving 30% and 50% pain reduction. Sodium valproate and benztropine reported the highest probability of total withdrawals and withdrawals due to adverse drug events, respectively. LIMITATION: The different follow-up time of the included studies can result in the variation of intended results. CONCLUSION: Nortriptyline reported the advantage relative to other drugs in achieving 30% and 50% pain reduction from the baseline. Gabapentin reported a significance of 50% pain reduction relative to placebo. KEY WORDS: Diabetic painful neuropathy, network meta-analysis, evidence based medicine, Bayesian analysis

Download Full-text

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients with CAD Undergoing Drug-eluting Stent Implantation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

Current Pharmaceutical Design ◽

10.2174/1381612826666200625110349 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 26 (44) ◽

pp. 5739-5745

Author(s):

Jieqiong Guan ◽

Wenjing Song ◽

Pan He ◽

Siyu Fan ◽

Hong Zhi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Antiplatelet Therapy ◽

Major Bleeding ◽

Dual Antiplatelet Therapy ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Drug Eluting Stent ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Risk Of Bleeding ◽

Increased Risk ◽

Drug Eluting

Objective: The aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for patients who received percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with a drug-eluting stent. Background: The optimal duration of DAPT to balance the risk of ischemia and bleeding in CAD patients undergoing drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation remains controversial. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Clinicaltrials.gov, CNKI and Wanfang Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials of comparing different durations of DAPT after DES implantation. Primary outcomes were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), and major bleeding, and were pooled by Bayes network meta-analysis. Net adverse clinical and cerebral events were used to estimate the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curves. The subgroup analysis based on clinical status, follow-up and area was conducted using traditional pairwise meta-analysis. Results: A total of nineteen trials (n=51,035) were included, involving six duration strategies. The network metaanalysis showed that T2 (<6-month DAPT followed by aspirin, HR:1.51, 95%CI:1.02-2.22), T3 (standard 6-month DAPT, HR:1.47, 95%CI:1.14-1.91), T4 (standard 12-month DAPT, HR:1.41, 95%CI:1.15-1.75) and T5 (18-24 months DAPT, HR:1.47, 95%CI:1.09-1.97) was associated with significantly increased risk of MACCE compared to T6 (>24-month DAPT). However, no significant difference was found in MACCE risk between T1 (<6-month DAPT followed by P2Y12 monotherapy) and T6. Moreover, T5 was associated with significantly increased risk of bleeding compared to T1(RR:3.94, 95%CI:1.66-10.60), T2(RR:3.65, 95%CI:1.32-9.97), T3(RR:1.93, 95%CI:1.21-3.50) and T4(RR:1.89, 95%CI:1.15-3.30). The cumulative probabilities showed that T6(85.0%), T1(78.3%) and T4(44.5%) were the most efficacious treatment compared to the other durations. In the ACS (<50%) subgroup, T1 was observed to significantly reduce the risk of major bleeding compared to T4, but not in the ACS (≥50%) subgroup. Conclusions: Compared with other durations, short DAPT followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy showed non-inferiority, with a lower risk of bleeding and not associated with an increased MACCE. In addition, the risk of major bleeding increased significantly, starting with DAPT for 18-month. Compared with the short-term treatment, patients with ACS with the standard 12-month treatment have a better prognosis, including lower bleeding rate and the decreased risk of MACCE. Due to study's limitations, the results should be verified in different risk populations.

Download Full-text

Comparison of clinical efficacy and safety between dexmedetomidine and propofol among patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis

Journal of International Medical Research ◽

10.1177/03000605211032786 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 49 (7) ◽

pp. 030006052110327

Author(s):

Weihua Liu ◽

Wenli Yu ◽

Hongli Yu ◽

Mingwei Sheng

Keyword(s):

Clinical Efficacy ◽

Lower Risk ◽

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy ◽

Weighted Mean Difference ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Similar Efficacy ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Inclusion Criteria ◽

Weighted Mean

Objective To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol in patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy. Methods Relevant studies comparing dexmedetomidine and propofol among patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy were retrieved from databases such as PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Results Seven relevant studies (dexmedetomidine group, n = 238; propofol group, n = 239) met the inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences in the induction time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 3.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.95–7.88, I2 = 99%) and recovery time (WMD = 2.74, 95% CI = −2.72–8.19, I2 = 98%). Subgroup analysis revealed no significant differences in the risks of hypotension (risk ratio [RR] = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.25–1.22) and nausea and vomiting (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.46–2.22) between the drugs, whereas dexmedetomidine carried a lower risk of hypoxia (RR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.11–0.63) and higher risk of bradycardia (RR = 3.01, 95% CI = 1.38–6.54). Conclusions Dexmedetomidine had similar efficacy and safety profiles as propofol in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and safety of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents for the treatment of oesophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046352 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (3) ◽

pp. e046352

Author(s):

Lijuan Zhang ◽

Yanli Song ◽

Nan Jiang ◽

Yaqi Huang ◽

Bo Dong ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Growth Factor ◽

Outcome Measures ◽

Oesophageal Cancer ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Growth Factor Receptor ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Secondary Outcome ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Positive Effects

ObjectivesDespite remarkable advances in the treatment of oesophageal cancer (OC), the role of antiepidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) agents in treating OC remains controversial. Herein, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to elucidate the efficacy and safety of anti-EGFR agents in patients with OC.DesignMeta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) identified by searching the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, Chinese Biology Medicine, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform databases from inception to December 2019. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.SettingRCTs from any country and healthcare setting.ParticipantsPatients with OC.InterventionsCombination therapy with anti-EGFR agents and conventional treatments versus conventional treatments alone in patients with OC.Primary and secondary outcome measuresOverall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were primary outcome measures, and objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) and treatment toxicities were secondary outcome measures.ResultsIn total, 25 RCTs comprising 3406 patients with OC were included. Overall, anti-EGFR treatment significantly improved the OS (HR: 0.81, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.89, p<0.00001), ORR (relative risk (RR): 1.33, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.52, p<0.0001) and DCR (RR: 1.22, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.34, p<0.0001) but not PFS (HR: 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.08, p=0.26). Anti-EGFR treatment was significantly associated with higher incidences of myelosuppression, diarrhoea, acne-like rash and hypomagnesaemia.ConclusionsOverall, anti-EGFR agents have positive effects on OS, the ORR and DCR in OC. However, considering the high incidence of adverse effects, such as myelosuppression, diarrhoea, acne-like rashes and hypomagnesaemia, careful monitoring of patients with OC is recommended during anti-EGFR treatment.Trial registration numberCRD42020169230.

Download Full-text