scholarly journals Novel Tetracyclines Versus Alternative Antibiotics for Treating Acute Bacterial Infection: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Antibiotics ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shao-Huan Lan ◽  
Wei-Ting Lin ◽  
Shen-Peng Chang ◽  
Li-Chin Lu ◽  
Chih-Cheng Lai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Bacterial Infections ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Acute Bacterial Infections ◽  
And Control

This meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of novel tetracyclines for treating acute bacterial infections. Data from PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO, Cochrane databases, Ovid Medline, and Embase databases were accessed until 11 July 2019. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of novel tetracyclines with that of other antibiotics for treating acute bacterial infections were included. Primary outcomes included the clinical response, microbiological response, and risk of adverse events (AEs). A total of eight RCTs were included, involving 2283 and 2197 patients who received novel tetracyclines and comparators, respectively. Overall, no significant difference was observed in the clinical response rate at test of cure between the experimental and control groups (for modified intent-to-treat [MITT] population, risk ratio [RR]: 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.99–1.05; for clinically evaluable [CE] population, RR: 1.02, 95% CI: 1.00–1.04; and for microbiological evaluable [ME] population, RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.99–1.04). No significant difference in the microbiological response at the end of treatment was observed between the experimental and control groups (for ME population, RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.99–1.03; for microbiological MITT population, RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.96–1.07). No difference was observed concerning the risk of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), serious adverse events, and discontinuation of treatment due to TEAEs and all-cause mortality between the two groups. In conclusion, clinical efficacy and safety profile for novel tetracyclines in the treatment of acute bacterial infections were found to be similar to those for other available antibiotics.

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 Efficacy and Safety of Sitafloxacin in the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Infection: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Antibiotics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 106
Author(s):  
Chao-Kun Chen ◽  
I-Ling Cheng ◽  
Yu-Hung Chen ◽  
Chih-Cheng Lai
Keyword(s):  
Bacterial Infection ◽  
Clinical Response ◽  
Bacterial Infections ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinical Response Rate ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Acute Bacterial Infections

This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of sitafloxacin in treating acute bacterial infection. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched up to August 13, 2019. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating sitafloxacin and comparators in the treatment of acute bacterial infections were included. The outcomes were clinical and microbiological responses and the risk of adverse event (AE). Five RCTs were enrolled, including 375 and 381 patients who received sitafloxacin and the comparator, respectively. Overall, the clinical response rate of sitafloxacin in the treatment of acute bacterial infections was 94.6%, which was noninferior to that of the comparator (92.5%) (odds ratio (OR), 1.01; 95% CI, 0.24–4.32; I2 = 66%). For patients with complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI)/acute pyelonephritis (APN), the clinical response rate of sitafloxacin and the comparator was 96.9% and 91.3%, respectively (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 0.35–12.44; I2 = 54%). For patients with pneumonia, the clinical response rate of sitafloxacin was 88.6%, which was comparable to that of the comparator (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.11–1.21; I2 = 0%). The microbiological response of sitafloxacin was 82.0%, which was noninferior to that of the comparator (77.8%) (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.77–3.28; I2 = 47%). The risk of treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), drug-related TEAE, and all-cause mortality were similar between sitafloxacin and the comparators (TEAE, OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.64–2.01, drug-related TEAE, OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.48–2.69, mortality, OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.09–9.44). In conclusion, sitafloxacin is noninferior to other commonly used antibiotics with respect to both clinical and microbiological response rates in patients with an acute bacterial infection, including cUTI/APN and pneumonia. In addition, sitafloxacin is also as safe as the comparators.

scholarly journals The Efficacy and Safety of Doripenem in the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Infections—A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. 958 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chih-Cheng Lai ◽  
I-Ling Cheng ◽  
Yu-Hung Chen ◽  
Hung-Jen Tang
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Bacterial Infections ◽  
Eradication Rate ◽  
Clinical Success ◽  
Clinical Success Rate ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Acute Bacterial Infections

This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of doripenem on treating patients with acute bacterial infections. The Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched up to April 2019. Only randomized clinical trials comparing doripenem and other comparators for the treatment of acute bacterial infection were included. The primary outcome was the clinical success rate and the secondary outcomes were microbiological eradication rate and risk of adverse events. Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Overall, doripenem had a similar clinical success rate with comparators (odds ratio [OR], 1.15; 95% CI, 0.79–1.66, I2 = 58%). Similar clinical success rates were noted between doripenem and comparators for pneumonia (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.46–1.53, I2 = 72%) and for intra-abdominal infections (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.57–1.72). For complicated urinary tract infection, doripenem was associated with higher success rate than comparators (OR, 1.89, 95% CI, 1.13–3.17, I2 = 0%). The pool analysis comparing doripenem and other carbapenems showed no significant differences between each other (OR, 0.96, 95% CI, 0.59–1.58, I2 = 63%). Doripenem also had a similar microbiological eradication rate with comparators (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.86–1.36, I2 = 0%). Finally, doripenem had a similar risk of treatment-emergent adverse events as comparators (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.83–1.17, I2 = 33%). In conclusion, the clinical efficacy of doripenem is as high as that of the comparator drugs in the treatment of acute bacterial infection; furthermore, this antibiotic is as well tolerated as the comparators.

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.

Inhaled Levodopa (CVT-301) for the Treatment of Parkinson Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
pp. 10.1212/CPJ.0000000000001143
Author(s):  
Glenardi Glenardi ◽  
Tutwuri Handayani ◽  
Jimmy Barus ◽  
Ghea Mangkuliguna
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Placebo Group ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Respiratory Symptoms ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Motor Fluctuation ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Improve Motor Function

ABSTRACTPurposeof Review: To investigate the efficacy and safety of CVT-301 for motor fluctuation in Parkinson’s disease (PD).Recent Findings:This study demonstrated that the CVT-301 group had a higher proportion of patients achieving an ON state than the placebo group (OR=2.68; 95% CI: 1.86-3.86; p<0.00001). Moreover, CVT-301 had also shown to improve motor function by UPDRS-III score (SMD=3.83; 95% CI: 2.44-5.23; p<0.00001) and promote an overall improvement of PD by PGIC self-rating (OR=2.95; 95% CI: 1.78-4.9; p<0.00001). The most common adverse events encountered were respiratory symptoms (OR=12.18; 95% CI: 5.01-29.62; p<0.00001) and nausea (OR=3.95; 95% CI: 1.01-15.41; p=0.05).Summary:CVT-301 had the potential to be an alternative or even a preferred treatment for motor fluctuation in PD patients.

scholarly journals The Effectiveness of Tocilizumab in the Treatment of COVID-19 in Adults: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chun Chen ◽  
ZeMei Zhou ◽  
Jing Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Hospital Discharge ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Composite Outcome ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Serious Infection ◽  
And Control

Abstract Background: Since December 2019, COVID-19 has spread to the world which leads to a global health threat. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of tocilizumab on COVID-19 patients.Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and WHO international Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) from their inception to March 10, 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on tocilizumab supplementation in adults with COVID-19 disease. The primary outcomes were mortality at 28-30 day and 60-day, incidence of mechanical ventilation (MV), composite outcome of death or MV, time to hospital discharge, and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. A random-effects meta-analysis model was used to pool studies. Results: Eleven studies with a total of 6,579 patients were included in our meta-analysis, of which 3,406 and 3,173 were respectively assigned to the tocilizumab and control groups. Tocilizumab could significantly reduce 28-30 day mortality (RR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.80-0.99, P = 0.04), incidence of MV (RR= 0.79, 95% CI 0.71-0.89, P = 0.0001), composition outcome of MV or death (RR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.72-0.90, P = 0.0002), time to hospital discharge (HR = 1.30, 95% CI 1.16-1.45, P ＜ 0.00001 ), ICU admissions (RR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.47-0.88, P = 0.006), serious infection (RR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.40-0.94, P = 0.02) and events of serious adverse advents (RR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.47-0.86, P = 0.004). There was no significant difference between tocilizumab and control groups in 60-day mortality and adverse events (AEs).Conclusions: Tocilizumab could reduce the short-term mortality, incidence of MV, composite outcome of death or MV, ICU admissions, serious infection and events of serious adverse advents, and shorten the time to hospital discharge in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The optimal effective dose needs to be confirmed by further studies.

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.

Abstract 2211: Statin Therapy May Increase the Risk of Intracerebral Hemorrhage: A Meta-analysis of 26 Randomized Controlled Trials

Stroke ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 43 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
James S McKinney ◽  
William J Kostis ◽  
John B Kostis
Keyword(s):  
Statin Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Active Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Group A ◽  
The Difference ◽  
And Control

Introduction--- Statin therapy decreases the risk of myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke. However, an increased risk of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) has been observed in some studies. To investigate this issue we performed a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using statins that reported ICH. Methods--- We performed a Medline literature search through March 18, 2011 and identified additional RCTs by reviewing reference lists of retrieved studies and prior meta-analyses. All RCTs of statin therapy versus placebo or high dose versus low dose statin therapy that reported ICH or hemorrhagic stroke were included. The primary outcome variable was ICH. 26 RCTs were included. All analyses used random effects models and heterogeneity was not observed in any of the analyses. Results--- 84 831 subjects were included in the Active group, and 84 851 in the Control group. A trend towards a higher incidence of ICH was observed in the Active treatment group compared to Control (OR = 1.15; 95% CI = 0.91 to 1.45, p =0.24) (Figure). Significant relationships were not observed between the log OR for ICH with achieved LDL in the Active group (slope = 0.0002; 95% CI = -0.0098 to 0.0101, p =0.96) or with the difference in LDL drop between the Active and Control groups (slope = 0.0030; 95% CI = -0.0089 to 0.0149, p =0.62). Total stroke (OR = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.78 to 0.91, p <0.001) and all-cause mortality (OR = 0.91; 95% CI = 0.86 to 0.96, p <0.001) were significantly reduced in the Active group. A significant relationship between all-cause mortality and the difference in LDL drop between the Active and Control groups was observed (slope = -0.0030; 95% CI = -0.0009 to -0.0051, p<0.005). There was not evidence of publication bias in this meta-analysis. Conclusions--- Active therapy was associated with a trend towards increased ICH in this meta-analysis of 26 RCTs of statin therapy. However, this risk does not appear to be related to the degree of decline or achieved LDL. The risk of ICH is offset by a significant reduction in ischemic stroke and all-cause mortality and should not dissuade practitioners from prescribing statins in otherwise appropriate patients.

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).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document