Efficacy and Safety of Levetiracetam vs. Phenobarbital for Neonatal Seizures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Neonatal seizures are a common neurological emergency in newborns. Phenobarbital (PB) is the first-line antiepileptic drug (AED). However, PB has some side effects, such as hypotension and respiratory depression, and it can accelerate neuronal apoptosis in the immature brain. Levetiracetam (LEV), a new antiepileptic drug, has been used as a second-line drug for the treatment of neonatal seizures. Compared with PB, LEV has many advantages, including a low incidence of side effects and better neurodevelopmental outcomes. However, there are only a few systematic reviews of LEV for the treatment of neonatal seizures.Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of LEV for neonatal seizures and to compare the efficacy, side effects, and neurological outcomes between LEV and PB in the treatment of neonatal seizures.Methods: The keywords LEV, PB, and neonatal seizure were searched in the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMBASE, clinicaltrials.gov, and China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI) databases with a last update in July 2021 to collect high-quality studies. We collected studies studying the efficacy or safety of LEV and PB in the treatment of neonatal seizures applying strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data were extracted and outcome measures, including efficacy, side effect rate, neurological score, and mortality rate, were analyzed with RevMan 5.3 software.Results: Ten articles were finally included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that there was no difference in efficacy between LEV and PB in the treatment of neonatal seizures. Compared with PB, the incidence of side effects of LEV was lower. The incidence of hypotension and respiratory depression in the LEV group was significantly lower than that in the PB group. In terms of long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes, there was no significant difference in the Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID) scores between LEV and PB.Conclusion: PB is still the first-line AED recommended by the WHO for the treatment of neonatal seizures. The new AEDs LEV may not have better efficacy than PB. At the same time, LEV is associated with better neurodevelopment outcomes and a lower risk of adverse effects. In addition, continuous EEG monitoring should be used to diagnose neonatal seizures to evaluate the severity of the seizures, remission, and drug efficacy.Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier: CRD42021279029.

Download Full-text

Comparison of the Efficacy of Melasma Treatments: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Frontiers in Medicine ◽

10.3389/fmed.2021.713554 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 8 ◽

Author(s):

Yi Liu ◽

Shanshan Wu ◽

Haixuan Wu ◽

Xuelei Liang ◽

Dechao Guo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Side Effects ◽

Tranexamic Acid ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Therapeutic Index ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Randomized Controlled

Background: Melasma is an acquired pigmentation disorder with challenges in treatment because of its refractory nature and high risk of recurrence.Objectives: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and side effects of 14 common therapies for melasma using a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA).Methods: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched till December 2020 using the melasma area and severity index as a therapeutic index. A total of 59 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria and were selected.Results: The ranking of relative efficacy compared with placebo in descending order was Q-switched Nd:Yag 1,064-nm laser (QSND), intense pulsed light, ablative fractional laser (AFL), triple combined cream (TCC), topical vitamin C, oral tranexamic acid (oTA), peeling, azelaic acid, microneedles (MNs), topical tranexamic acid (tTA), tretinoin, picosecond laser, hydroquinone (HQ), and non-AFL. Moreover, QSND was more effective than HQ and tTA against melasma. The ranking of percentage (%) of side effects in ascending order for each of 14 therapies with more than 80 participants was tretinoin (10.1%), oTA (17.6%), HQ (18.2%), AFL (20.0%), QSND (21.5%), TCC (25.7%), tTA (36.75%), peeling (38.0%), and MN (52.3%). Taking both efficacy and safety into consideration, TCC was found to be the most favorable selection among the topical drugs for melasma. QSND and AFL were still the best ways to treat melasma among photoelectric devices. oTA as system administration was a promising way recommended for melasma. Among 31 studies, 87% (27/31) studies showed that the efficacy of combination therapies is superior to that of single therapy. The quality of evidence in this study was generally high because of nearly 50% of split-face RCTs.Conclusions: Based on the published studies, this NMA indicated that QSND, AFL, TCC, and oTA would be the preferred ways to treat melasma for dermatologists. However, more attention should be paid to the efficacy and safety simultaneously during the clinical application. Most of the results were in line with those of the previous studies, but a large number of RCTs should be included for validation or update.Systematic Review Registration: identifier: CRD42021239203.

Download Full-text

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment for peripartum depression: systematic review & meta-analysis

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth ◽

10.1186/s12884-021-03600-3 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Hyune June Lee ◽

Sung Min Kim ◽

Ji Yean Kwon

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ◽

Side Effects ◽

Electroconvulsive Therapy ◽

Effect Size ◽

Magnetic Stimulation ◽

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Peripartum Depression

Abstract Background Peripartum depression is a common disorder with very high potential hazards for both the patients and their babies. The typical treatment options include antidepressants and electroconvulsive therapy. However, these treatments do not ensure the safety of the fetus. Recently, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation has emerged as a promising treatment for neuropathies as well as depression. Nevertheless, many studies excluded pregnant women. This systematic review was conducted to confirm whether repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation was a suitable treatment option for peripartum depression. Methods We performed a systematic review that followed the PRISMA guidelines. We searched for studies in the MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases published until the end of September 2020. Eleven studies were selected for the systematic review, and five studies were selected for quantitative synthesis. Data analysis was conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis 3 software. The effect size was analyzed using the standardized mean difference, and the 95% confidence interval (CI) was determined by the generic inverse variance estimation method. Results The therapeutic effect size of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for peripartum depression was 1.394 (95% CI: 0.944–1.843), and the sensitivity analysis effect size was 1.074 (95% CI: 0.689–1.459), indicating a significant effect. The side effect size of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for peripartum depression was 0.346 (95% CI: 0.214–0.506), a meaningful result. There were no severe side effects to the mothers or fetuses. Conclusions From various perspectives, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation can be considered an alternative treatment to treat peripartum depression to avoid exposure of fetuses to drugs and the severe side effects of electroconvulsive therapy. Further research is required to increase confidence in the results.

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

Efficacy and safety of immunological checkpoint inhibitors combined with anti-angiogenic drugs in first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Translational Andrology and Urology ◽

10.21037/tau-20-969 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (1) ◽

pp. 300-309

Author(s):

Yingwei Xie ◽

Zhiliang Chen ◽

Qiyu Zhong ◽

Yuqing Chen ◽

Wentai Shangguan ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽

Cell Carcinoma ◽

Renal Cell ◽

Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Line Treatment ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

First Line ◽

First Line Treatment

Download Full-text

Does propofol ameliorate occurrence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction after general anaesthesia? A protocol of systematic review

Systematic Reviews ◽

10.1186/s13643-021-01610-y ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Xi Zhao ◽

Ze-qing Huang

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Cognitive Dysfunction ◽

Short Term Memory ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Postoperative Cognitive Dysfunction ◽

Biomedical Literature ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

China National Knowledge Infrastructure

Abstract Background Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is a common condition after general anesthesia (GA). Previous studies have reported that propofol can ameliorate the occurrence of such disorder. However, its results are still inconsistent. Therefore, this systematic review will assess the efficacy and safety of propofol on POCD after GA. Methods Literature sources will be sought from inception to the present in Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the administration of propofol on POCD after GA. All searches will be carried out without limitations to language and publication status. Outcomes comprise of cognitive impairments changes, impairments in short-term memory, concentration, language comprehension, social integration, quality of life, and adverse events. Cochrane risk of bias tool will be utilized to assess study quality. We will evaluate the quality of evidence for each outcome using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. A narrative synthesis or a meta-analysis will be undertaken as appropriate. Discussion This study will systematically and comprehensively search literature and integrate evidence on the efficacy and safety of propofol on POCD after GA. Our findings will be of interest to clinicians and health-related policy makers. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020164096

Download Full-text

Efficacy and safety of omalizumab in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047344 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (9) ◽

pp. e047344

Author(s):

Qingwu Wu ◽

Lianxiong Yuan ◽

Huijun Qiu ◽

Xinyue Wang ◽

Xuekun Huang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Chronic Rhinosinusitis ◽

Randomised Controlled Trials ◽

Nasal Polyps ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy and safety of omalizumab for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and to identify evidence gaps that will guide future research on omalizumab for CRSwNP.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesA comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library on 13 October 2020.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing omalizumab with placebo, given for at least 16 weeks in adult patients with CRSwNP.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent authors screened search results, extracted data and assessed studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data were pooled using the inverse-variance method and expressed as mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was assessed by the χ2 test and the I2 statistic.ResultsA total of four RCTs involving 303 participants were identified. When comparing omalizumab to placebo, there was a significant difference in Nasal Polyps Score (MD=−1.20; 95% CI −1.48 to −0.92), Nasal Congestion Score (MD=−0.67; 95% CI −0.86 to −0.48), Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (MD=−15.62; 95% CI −19.79 to −11.45), Total Nasal Symptom Score (MD=−1.84; 95% CI −2.43 to −1.25) and reduced need for surgery (risk ratio (RR)=5.61; 95% CI 1.99 to 15.81). Furthermore, there was no difference in the risk of serious adverse events ((RR=1.40; 95% CI 0.29 to 6.80), adverse events (RR=0.83; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.15) and rescue systemic corticosteroid (RR=0.52; 95% CI 0.17 to 1.61).ConclusionsThis was the first meta-analysis that identified omalizumab significantly improved endoscopic, clinical and patient-reported outcomes in adults with moderate to severe CRSwNP and it was safe and well tolerated.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020207639.

Download Full-text

Comparison of intravitreal dexamethasone implant and anti-VEGF drugs in the treatment of retinal vein occlusion-induced oedema: a meta-analysis and systematic review

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032128 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (6) ◽

pp. e032128

Author(s):

Shuai Ming ◽

Kunpeng Xie ◽

Mingzhu Yang ◽

Huijuan He ◽

Ya Li ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Retinal Vein Occlusion ◽

Real World ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Real Life ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Vein Occlusion ◽

Anti Vegf ◽

Intravitreal Dexamethasone

ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents in the treatment of macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).Data sourcesPubMed, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov registry were searched from inception to 10 December 2019, without language restrictions.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world observation studies comparing the efficacy of DEX implant and anti-VEGF agents for the treatment of patients with RVO, naïve or almost naïve to both arms, were included.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently extracted data for mean changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central subfield thickness (CST) and product safety. Review Manager V.5.3 and GRADE were used to synthesise the data and validate the evidence, respectively.ResultsFour RCTs and 12 real-world studies were included. An average lower letter gain in BCVA was determined for the DEX implant (mean difference (MD) = −6.59; 95% CI −8.87 to −4.22 letters) administered at a retreatment interval of 5–6 months. Results were similar (MD6 months=−12.68; 95% CI −21.98 to −3.37 letters; MD12 months=−9.69; 95% CI −12.01 to −7.37 letters) at 6 and 12 months. The DEX implant resulted in comparable or marginally less CST reduction at months 6 and 12 but introduced relatively higher risks of elevated intraocular pressure (RR=3.89; 95% CI 2.16 to 7.03) and cataract induction (RR=5.22; 95% CI 1.67 to 16.29). Most real-life studies reported an insignificant numerical gain in letters for anti-VEGF drugs relative to that for DEX implant. However, the latter achieved comparable efficacy with a 4-month dosage interval.ConclusionCompared with anti-VEGF agents, DEX implant required fewer injections but had inferior functional efficacy and safety. Real-life trials supplemented the efficacy data for DEX implant.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and safety of intradialytic exercise in haemodialysis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020633 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (1) ◽

pp. e020633 ◽

Cited By ~ 15

Author(s):

Jiang Pu ◽

Zheng Jiang ◽

Weihua Wu ◽

Li Li ◽

Liling Zhang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Blood Pressure ◽

Short Form ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

The Body ◽

Peak Oxygen Consumption ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Sf 36 ◽

Intradialytic Exercise

ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of intradialytic exercise for haemodialysis patients.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesDatabases, including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, China Biology Medicine and China National Knowledge Infrastructure, were screened from inception to March 2017.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) aimed at comparing the efficacy and safety of intradialytic exercise versus no exercise in adult patients on haemodialysis for at least 3 months. A minimum exercise programme period of 8 weeks.Data extractionStudy characteristics and study quality domains were reviewed. Studies were selected, and data extracted by two reviewers.Data analysisThe pooled risk ratios and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for dichotomous data and continuous data were calculated, respectively.ResultsA total of 27 RCTs involving 1215 subjects were analysed. Compared with no exercise, intradialytic exercise increased dialysis adequacy (Kt/V) (MD 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.12, p=0.02) and maximum volume of oxygen that the body can use during physical exertion peak oxygen consumption (MD 4.11, 95% CI 2.94 to 5.27, p<0.0001), alleviated depression standardised mean difference (−1.16, 95% CI −1.86 to –0.45, p=0.001) and improved physical component summary-short form-36 (SF-36) level (MD 7.72, 95% CI 1.93 to 13.51, p=0.009). Also, intradialytic exercise could significantly reduce systolic blood pressure (MD −4.87, 95% CI −9.20 to –0.55, p=0.03) as well as diastolic blood pressure (MD −4.11, 95% CI −6.50 to –1.72, p=0.0007). However, intradialytic exercise could not improve mental component summary-SF-36 level (MD 3.05, 95% CI −1.47 to 7.57, p=0.19). There was no difference in the incidence of adverse events between the intradialytic exercise and control groups.ConclusionsIntradialytic exercise resulted in benefits in terms of improving haemodialysis adequacy, exercise capacity, depression and quality of life for haemodialysis.

Download Full-text