scholarly journals Lantox—The Chinese Botulinum Toxin Drug—Complete English Bibliography and Comprehensive Formalised Literature Review

Toxins ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 370
Author(s):  
Dirk Dressler ◽  
Lizhen Pan ◽  
Junhui Su ◽  
Fei Teng ◽  
Lingjing Jin
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Similar Efficacy ◽  
Conversion Ratio ◽  
Brand Names ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Paper Citation ◽  
Safety Features ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Nose And Throat

In 1997, lanbotulinumtoxinA (LAN) was introduced in China. It is now available in Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe under various brand names including Hengli®, Lantox®, Prosigne®, Lanzox®, Redux®, Liftox®, HBTX-A and CBTX-A. The literature on LAN is mostly published in Chinese language, restricting its international accessibility. We, therefore, wanted to generate a complete English bibliography of all LAN publications and then use it for a comprehensive formalised literature review. Altogether, 379 LAN publications (322 in Chinese and 57 in English) were retrieved from PubMed and Science and Technology Paper Citation Database. Indications covered are motor (257), glandular (16), pain (32) and aesthetics (48). Topics are neurological (250), aesthetic (48), paediatric (38), ophthalmological (18), urological (9), methodological (6), gastroenterological (5), ear, nose and throat (4) and surgical (1). Seventy-one publications are randomised controlled trials, forty-one publications are interventional studies and observational studies, fifteen publications are case studies, eighteen publications are reviews, and two publications are guidelines. LAN publications cover all relevant topics of BT therapy throughout a period of more than 20 years. This constitutes a publication basis resembling those of other BT drugs. None of the LAN publications presents data contradictory to those generated with other BT type-A drugs. LAN seems to have a similar efficacy and safety features when compared to onabotulinumtoxinA using a 1:1 LAN– onabotulinumtoxinA conversion ratio. Large controlled multicentre studies will become necessary for LAN’s registrations in Europe and North America.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of platinum chain and gold weight implants for paralytic lagophthalmos: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 106-15
Author(s):  
Yunia Irawati ◽  
Tjahjono Darminto Gondhowiardjo ◽  
Hardyanto Soebono
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Similar Efficacy ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Gold Weight ◽  
Platinum Chain

BACKGROUND Surgery has been proposed as a treatment of paralytic lagophthalmos. However, no consensus has been reached on the best treatment. This study was aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety between platinum chain and gold weight implants to treat paralytic lagophthalmos. METHODS This study used all randomized controlled trials or observational studies (prospective or retrospective) using platinum chain and gold weight implants for paralytic lagophthalmos surgery that were published from 1990 to 2020 in the PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases. Efficacy was indicated by the reduction of ≥3 in lagophthalmos, and safety was measured based on complications after surgery. RESULTS The efficacy of platinum chain and gold weight implants were 60–100% and 10–93.6%, respectively. The complications of platinum chain implant were 0–2.9% of extrusion and 0–3.3% of migration. However, gold weight implant had 0–13.3% of migration. CONCLUSIONS Both platinum chain and gold weight implants have similar efficacy to treat paralytic lagophthalmos. However, gold weight implant has a higher rate of complication.

scholarly journals Relative efficacy and safety of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for osteoarthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies

2018 ◽  
Vol 52 (10) ◽  
pp. 642-650 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chao Zeng ◽  
Jie Wei ◽  
Monica S M Persson ◽  
Aliya Sarmanova ◽  
Michael Doherty ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pain Relief ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Inflammatory Drugs ◽  
Anti Inflammatory ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Topical Nsaids

ObjectivesTo compare the efficacy and safety of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including salicylate, for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA).MethodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched from 1966 to January 2017. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing topical NSAIDs with placebo or each other in patients with OA and observational studies comparing topical NSAIDs with no treatment or each other irrespective of disease were included. Two investigators identified studies and independently extracted data. Bayesian network and conventional meta-analyses were conducted. The primary outcomes were pain relief for RCTs and risk of adverse effects (AEs) for observational studies.Results43 studies, comprising 36 RCTs (7 900 patients with OA) and seven observational studies (218 074 participants), were included. Overall, topical NSAIDs were superior to placebo for relieving pain (standardised mean difference (SMD)=−0.30, 95% CI −0.40 to –0.20) and improving function (SMD=−0.35, 95% CI −0.45 to –0.24) in OA. Of all topical NSAIDs, diclofenac patches were most effective for OA pain (SMD=−0.81, 95% CI −1.12 to –0.52) and piroxicam was most effective for functional improvement (SMD=−1.04, 95% CI −1.60 to –0.48) compared with placebo. Although salicylate gel was associated with higher withdrawal rates due to AEs, the remaining topical NSAIDs were not associated with any increased local or systemic AEs.ConclusionsTopical NSAIDs were effective and safe for OA. Diclofenac patches may be the most effective topical NSAID for pain relief. No serious gastrointestinal and renal AEs were observed in trials or the general population. However, confirmation of the cardiovascular safety of topical NSAIDs still warrants further observational study.

Pegfilgrastim safety and efficacy on the last chemotherapy day versus the next: systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. bmjspcare-2020-002532
Author(s):  
Xiaohua Ma ◽  
Jian Kang ◽  
Yufang Li ◽  
Xiaojian Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Gynaecological Malignancies ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesTo investigate the efficacy and safety of pegfilgrastim administered on the day of chemotherapy completion (same day) versus at least 1 day after chemotherapy (next day).MethodsWe searched relevant literature published before April 2020 from the following databases: Embase, PubMed, Cochrane databases and Web of science.ResultsOne randomised controlled trial and 12 observational studies met all of the prespecified criteria for eligibility. The meta-analysis showed a significantly higher febrile neutropenia (FN) rate for the same-day group than that for the next-day arm in the first chemotherapy cycle (OR=2.56, 95% CI 1.19 to 5.48, p=0.02), and in all chemotherapy cycles (OR=1.54, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.84, p<0.00001). Results of subgroup analysis showed a higher FN rate in the same-day arm than in the next-day group for patients with breast cancer (OR=5.50, 95% CI 2.29 to 13.23, p=0.0001) and lymphoma (OR=1.53, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.34, p=0.05). The pooled analysis of studies on gynaecological malignancies showed that patients in the same-day group had a higher incidence of bone pain (OR=1.30, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.68, p=0.04) and a lower incidence of chemotherapy delay (OR=0.71, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.96, p=0.03) compared with the next-day group.ConclusionsSame-day administration of pegfilgrastim resulted in increased incidence of FN compared with the next-day schedule. This is especially true for patients with breast cancer or lymphoma. These results do not support same-day administration of pegfilgrastim .

scholarly journals Immunomodulatory therapies for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection: an update of the systematic literature review to inform EULAR points to consider

RMD Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. e001899
Author(s):  
Alessia Alunno ◽  
Aurélie Najm ◽  
Xavier Mariette ◽  
Gabriele De Marco ◽  
Jenny Emmel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Therapeutic Strategies ◽  
Antibody Responses ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Jak Inhibitors ◽  
Immunomodulatory Agents ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Immunomodulatory Therapies

ObjectiveTo update the EULAR 2020 systematic literature review (SLR) on efficacy and safety of immunomodulatory agents in SARS-CoV-2 infection.MethodsAs part of a EULAR taskforce, a systematic literature search update was conducted from 11 December 2020 to 14 July 2021. Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies and extracted data on efficacy and safety of immunomodulatory agents used therapeutically in SARS-CoV-2 infection at any stage of disease. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed with validated tools.ResultsOf the 26 959 records, 520 articles were eligible for inclusion. Studies were mainly at high or unclear RoB. New randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on tocilizumab clarified its benefit in patients with severe and critical COVID-19, mainly if associated with glucocorticoids. There are emergent data on the usefulness of baricitinib and tofacitinib in severe COVID-19. Other therapeutic strategies such as the use of convalescent plasma and anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies showed efficacy in subjects not mounting normal anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses.ConclusionThis new SLR confirms that some immunomodulators (tocilizumab and JAK inhibitors) have a role for treating severe and critical COVID-19. Although better evidence is available compared with the previous SLR, the need of RCT with combination therapy (glucocorticoids+anti-cytokines) versus monotherapy with glucocorticoids still remains alongside the need for standardisation of inclusion criteria and outcomes to ultimately improve the care and prognosis of affected people. This SLR informed the 2021 update of the EULAR points to consider on the use of immunomodulatory therapies in COVID-19.

scholarly journals Novel Oral Anticoagulants versus Vitamin K Antagonists for Patients with Left Ventricular Thrombus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Runzhen Chen ◽  
Jinying Zhou ◽  
Chen Liu ◽  
Peng Zhou ◽  
Jiannan Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Vitamin K ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonists ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Similar Efficacy ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Thrombus ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Ventricular Thrombus

AbstractBackgroundAlthough vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) are recommended as first-line anticoagulants for patients with left ventricular thrombus (LVT), accumulating evidence suggests novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) could be safe alternatives for VKAs. Efficacy and safety of NOACs should be assessed to justify their usage for LVT patients.DesignWe performed a meta-analysis of observational studies to evaluate the efficacy and safety of NOACs as compared to VKAs in LVT patients.MethodsPubMed and EMBASE databases were searched for articles published until November 12, 2020. Two reviewers independently extracted relevant information from articles and assessed the study quality. Pooled effects were estimated using Mantel–Haenssel method and presented as risk ratios (RR) using fixed-effect model. Reporting followed the Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guideline.ResultsA total of 2467 LVT patients from 13 studies were included. Compared with VKAs, NOACs showed similar efficacy in prevention of stroke or systemic embolism (RR: 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI]:0.80-1.16, P = 0.68) and thrombus resolution (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.72-1.09, P = 0.20), but significantly reduced the risk of stroke (RR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.47-1.00, P < 0.05). For safety outcomes, NOACs users showed similar risk of any bleedings (RR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.67-1.31, P = 0.70), but lower risk of clinically relevant bleedings (RR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.13-0.92, P = 0.03) compared with VKAs users.ConclusionsCompared with VKAs, NOACs acquired similar efficacy and safety profile for patients with LVT, but could reduce the risk of strokes and clinically relevant bleedings.

scholarly journals Antipsychotic Drugs or Benzodiazepines for Rapid Tranquilization in Mental Health Facilities or Emergency Department Settings

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (8) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabrielle Brankston ◽  
Lory Picheca
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Antipsychotic Drugs ◽  
Alcohol Intoxication ◽  
Similar Efficacy ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Comparative Efficacy ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Inpatient Settings

Evidence from 5 systematic reviews, 3 randomized controlled trials, and 4 observational studies provide inconsistent evidence regarding the comparative efficacy and safety of antipsychotic drugs and benzodiazepines for adults with acute aggression or agitation requiring rapid tranquilization in emergency department or mental health inpatient settings. Overall, the evidence came from low- to moderate-quality studies. Some studies suggested different antipsychotic drugs and benzodiazepines, alone or in combination, have similar efficacy, whereas others favoured one treatment over another. No studies differentiated between adults aged 18 to 64 years and those older than 65 years. Most studies included mixed ages or excluded patients older than 75 years. No studies differentiated between aggression or agitation associated with psychiatric illness and other etiologies such as alcohol intoxication. One guideline suggests initial treatment with intramuscular lorazepam, promethazine, or 1 of aripiprazole, droperidol, or olanzapine. If the desired outcome is not achieved with monotherapy, the guideline recommends an intramuscular combination of either promethazine plus haloperidol or lorazepam plus haloperidol.

scholarly journals Immunomodulatory therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic literature review to inform EULAR points to consider

2021 ◽  
pp. annrheumdis-2020-219725
Author(s):  
Alessia Alunno ◽  
Aurélie Najm ◽  
Xavier Mariette ◽  
Gabriele De Marco ◽  
Jenny Emmel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Intravenous Immunoglobulins ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Disease Stage ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Immunomodulatory Treatment ◽  
Immunomodulatory Agents ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Immunomodulatory Therapies

ObjectiveTo summarise the available information on efficacy and safety of immunomodulatory agents in SARS-CoV-2 infection.MethodsAs part of a European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) taskforce, a systematic literature search was conducted from January 2019 to 11 December 2020. Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies according to the Population, Intervention, Comparator and Outcome framework and extracted data on efficacy and safety of immunomodulatory agents used therapeutically in SARS-CoV-2 infection at any stage. The risk of bias was assessed with validated tools.ResultsOf the 60 372 records, 401 articles were eligible for inclusion. Studies were at variable risk of bias. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were available for the following drugs: hydroxychloroquine (n=12), glucocorticoids (n=6), tocilizumab (n=4), convalescent plasma (n=4), interferon beta (n=2), intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg) (n=2) and n=1 each for anakinra, baricitinib, colchicine, leflunomide, ruxolitinib, interferon kappa and vilobelimab. Glucocorticoids were able to reduce mortality in specific subsets of patients, while conflicting data were available about tocilizumab. Hydroxychloroquine was not beneficial at any disease stage, one RCT with anakinra was negative, one RCT with baricitinib+remdesivir was positive, and individual trials on some other compounds provided interesting, although preliminary, results.ConclusionAlthough there is emerging evidence about immunomodulatory therapies for the management of COVID-19, conclusive data are scarce with some conflicting data. Since glucocorticoids seem to improve survival in some subsets of patients, RCTs comparing glucocorticoids alone versus glucocorticoids plus anticytokine/immunomodulatory treatment are warranted. This systematic literature review informed the initiative to formulate EULAR ‘points to consider’ on COVID-19 pathophysiology and immunomodulatory treatment from the rheumatology perspective.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document