Mycophenolate Mofetil for Induction Treatment of Lupus Nephritis: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis

2010 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
ZAHI TOUMA ◽  
DAFNA D. GLADMAN ◽  
MURRAY B. UROWITZ ◽  
JOSEPH BEYENE ◽  
ELIZABETH M. ULERYK ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mycophenolate Mofetil ◽  
Lupus Nephritis ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Gastrointestinal Symptoms ◽  
Induction Treatment ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Endstage Renal Disease ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Objective.To systematically review the efficacy and safety of mycophenolic acid and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) compared to cyclophosphamide (CYC) for the induction treatment of lupus nephritis (LN).Methods.Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials, and abstracts presented in major international conferences were searched for randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was renal remission (complete, partial, and overall) and secondary outcomes were adverse events during study period and longterm followup data. Data were compared between groups and relative risk (RR) and 95% CI were calculated.Results.Four trials of a total of 618 patients were included. MMF was not superior to CYC for renal remission (partial RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.12; complete RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.28, and overall RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.10). There was a significant reduction in alopecia (RR 5.77, 95% CI 1.56 to 21.38) and amenorrhea (RR 6.64, 95% CI 2.00 to 22.07) with the use of MMF compared to CYC. These results should be interpreted with caution given the width of the CI. There was no significant difference for infections, leukopenia, gastrointestinal symptoms, herpes zoster, endstage renal disease, and death among groups during study period and longterm followup data.Conclusion.We could not show that MMF is superior to CYC for the induction treatment of LN. Patients treated with MMF showed reduced risk of certain side effects. MMF can be used as an alternative to CYC for the induction treatment of LN.

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.

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.

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).

scholarly journals Comparative efficacy and safety of mycophenolate mofetil and cyclophosphamide in the induction treatment of lupus nephritis

Medicine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 99 (38) ◽  
pp. e22328 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yue-Peng Jiang ◽  
Xiao-Xuan Zhao ◽  
Rong-Rong Chen ◽  
Zheng-Hao Xu ◽  
Cheng-Ping Wen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mycophenolate Mofetil ◽  
Lupus Nephritis ◽  
Induction Treatment ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Comparative Efficacy

scholarly journals Activity and Safety of Tegafur, Gimeracil, and Oteracil Potassium for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Ximing Zhang ◽  
Xiumei Tian ◽  
Yuezi Wei ◽  
Hao Deng ◽  
Lichun Ma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Adverse Reactions ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
China National Knowledge Infrastructure ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

In clinical practice, tegafur, gimeracil, and oteracil potassium (S-1) therapy is commonly administered to treat nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). However, its efficacy and safety remain controversial in both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of S-1 treatment for NPC. We searched PubMed, Ovid, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, and VIP databases for RCTs of chemotherapy with or without S-1 for NPC, from 2001 to 2020. A meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5.3 and Stata15. Randomized controlled trials published in journals were included irrespective of blinding and language used. Patients were diagnosed with NPC through a clinicopathological examination; patients of all cancer stages and ages were included. Overall, 25 trials and 1858 patients were included. There were significant differences in the complete remission (OR = 2.42, 95% CI (1.88–3.10), P < 0.05 ) and overall response rate (OR = 2.68, 95% CI (2.08–3.45), P < 0.05 ) between the S-1 and non-S-1 groups. However, there was no significant difference in partial remission (OR = 1.10, 95% CI (0.87–1.39), P = 0.42 ) and seven adverse reactions (leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, dermatitis, oral mucositis, and anemia) between the S-1 and non-S-1 groups. Additionally, statistical analyses with six subgroups were performed. S-1 was found to be a satisfactory chemotherapeutic agent combined with radiotherapy, intravenous chemotherapy, or chemoradiotherapy for NPC. As an oral medicine, the adverse reactions of S-1, especially gastrointestinal reactions, can be tolerated by patients, thereby optimizing their quality of life. S-1 may be a better choice for the treatment of NPC. This trial is registered with CRD42019122041.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document