0
selected
-
1.
Meta-analysis of arbidol versus lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019.
Yu, M, Wang, DC, Li, S, Lei, YH, Wei, J, Huang, LY
Journal of medical virology. 2022;(4):1513-1522
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of arbidol and lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using a meta-analysis method. METHODS The China Knowledge Network, VIP database, WanFang database PubMed database, Embase database, and Cochrane Library were searched for a collection of comparative studies on arbidol and lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of COVID-19. Meta-analysis was used to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Arbidol and lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of COVID-19. RESULTS The results of the systematic review indicated that Arbidol had a higher positive-to-negative conversion rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid on Day 7 (p = 0.03), a higher positive-to-negative conversion rate of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid on Day 14 (p = 0.006), a higher improvement rate of chest computed tomography on Day 14 (p = 0.02), a lower incidence of adverse reactions (p = 0.002) and lower rate of mortality (p = 0.007). There was no difference in the rate of cough disappearance on Day 14 (p = 0.24) or the rate of severe/critical illness (p = 0.07) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Arbidol may be superior to lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of COVID-19. However, due to the small number of included studies and the number of patients, high-quality multicenter large-sample randomized double-blind controlled trials are still needed for verification.
-
2.
Interferon alpha therapy in essential thrombocythemia and polycythemia vera-a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Bewersdorf, JP, Giri, S, Wang, R, Podoltsev, N, Williams, RT, Tallman, MS, Rampal, RK, Zeidan, AM, Stahl, M
Leukemia. 2021;(6):1643-1660
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Data on the efficacy and safety of interferon (IFN)-α for the treatment of essential thrombocythemia (ET) and polycythemia vera (PV) are inconsistent. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis and searched MEDLINE and EMBASE via Ovid, Scopus, COCHRANE registry of clinical trials, and Web of Science from inception through 03/2019 for studies of pegylated IFN (peg-IFN) and non-pegylated IFN (non-peg-IFN) in PV and ET patients. Random-effects models were used to pool response rates for the primary outcome of overall response rate (ORR) defined as a composite of complete response, partial response, complete hematologic response (CHR) and partial hematologic response. Peg-IFN and non-peg-IFN were compared by meta-regression analyses. In total, 44 studies with 1359 patients (730 ET, 629 PV) were included. ORR were 80.6% (95% confidence interval: 76.6-84.1%, CHR: 59.0% [51.5%-66.1%]) and 76.7% (67.4-84.0%; CHR: 48.5% [37.8-59.4%]) for ET and PV patients, respectively. In meta-regression analyses results did not differ significantly for non-peg-IFN vs. peg-IFN. Annualized rates of thromboembolic complications and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events were low at 1.2% and 8.8% for ET and 0.5% and 6.5% for PV patients, respectively. Both peg-IFN and non-peg-IFN can be effective and safe long-term treatments for ET and PV.
-
3.
Systematic review with meta-analysis: impact of baseline resistance-associated substitutions on the efficacy of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir among chronic hepatitis C patients.
Singh, AD, Maitra, S, Singh, N, Tyagi, P, Ashraf, A, Kumar, R, Shalimar,
Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics. 2020;(5):490-504
Abstract
BACKGROUND The effect of baseline resistance-associated substitutions (RAS) on the sustained virologic response at 12 weeks (SVR12) among chronic hepatitis C (CHC) patients receiving the second generation, pan-genotypic glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (G/P) regimen is unclear. AIM: To assess the effect of RAS on the SVR12 in CHC patients treated with G/P regimen. METHODS The EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane central register of controlled trials databases were searched for relevant studies published before 1 March 2019. The principal outcome was to compare the SVR12 in CHC patients with and without baseline RAS, particularly in genotype-1, genotype-3 and direct-acting anti-virals (DAAs) failure patients. The outcomes were pooled using a random-effects model and odds ratio (OR) was calculated. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools for randomised and nonrandomised interventional studies. RESULTS After initially identifying 410 studies, 3302 patients from 17 studies were included. Among 50 cases of virologic failures, 48% had genotype-3 infection, 44% genotype-1 infection and 36% DAA-failure patients. Baseline RAS were present in 44(88%) patients. The most common NS5a and NS3 mutations were Y93H and A166S respectively. The odds of SVR12 were significantly reduced in patients with any baseline RAS (NS3 and/or NS5a) (OR 0.32, 95%C I[0.15, 0.65], I2 = 0%) and NS5a substitutions (OR 0.36, 95%CI [0.18,0.73]). The impact of RAS on SVR12 was significant among genotype-3 patients, but not among genotype-1 or DAA-failure cases. The presence of Y93H and A30K mutations significantly impacted SVR12 rates in genotype-3 patients. CONCLUSION Baseline NS3 or NS5a RAS, especially the NS5a substitutions-A30K, Y93H, decrease the odds of achieving SVR12 in genotype-3 CHC patients.
-
4.
Safety and efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavir combination in COVID-19: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis.
Bhattacharyya, A, Kumar, S, Sarma, P, Kaur, H, Prajapat, M, Shekhar, N, Bansal, S, Avti, P, Hazarika, M, Sharma, S, et al
Indian journal of pharmacology. 2020;(4):313-323
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Being protease inhibitors and owing to their efficacy in SARS-CoV, lopinavir + ritonavir (L/R) combination is being used in the management of COVID-19. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we have evaluated the comparative safety and efficacy of L/R combination. MATERIALS AND METHODS Comparative, observational studies and controlled clinical trials comparing L/R combination to standard of care (SOC)/control or any other antiviral agent/combinations were included. A total of 10 databases were searched to identify 13 studies that fulfilled the predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. RESULTS No discernible beneficial effect was seen in the L/R group in comparison to SOC/control in terms of "progression to more severe state" (4 studies, odds ratio [OR]: 1.446 [0.722-2.895]), "mortality" (3 studies, OR: 1.208 [0.563-2.592]), and "virological cure on days 7-10" (3 studies, OR: 0.777 [0.371-1.630]), while the L/R combination arm performed better than the SOC/control arm in terms of "duration of hospital stay" (3 studies, mean difference (MD): -1.466 [-2.403 to - 0.529]) and "time to virological cure" (3 studies, MD: -3.272 [-6.090 to - 0.454]). No difference in efficacy was found between L/R versus hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and L/R versus arbidol. However, in a single randomized controlled trail (open label), chloroquine (CQ) performed better than L/R. The combination L/R with arbidol may be beneficial (in terms of virological clearance and radiological improvement); however, we need more dedicated studies. Single studies report efficacy of L/R + interferon (IFN, either alpha or 1-beta) combination. We need more studies to delineate the proper effect size. Regarding adverse effects, except occurrence of diarrhea (higher in the L/R group), safety was comparable to SOC. CONCLUSION In our study, no difference was seen between the L/R combination and the SOC arm in terms of "progression to more severe state," "mortality," and virological cure on days 7-10;" however, some benefits in terms of "duration of hospital stay" and "time to virological cure" were seen. No significant difference in efficacy was seen when L/R was compared to arbidol and HCQ monotherapy. Except for the occurrence of diarrhea, which was higher in the L/R group, safety profile of L/R is comparable to SOC. Compared to L/R combination, CQ, L/R + arbidol, L/R + IFN-α, and L/R + IFN-1β showed better efficacy, but the external validity of these findings is limited by limited number of studies (1 study each).
-
5.
Comparative efficacy of tenofovir and entecavir in nucleos(t)ide analogue-naive chronic hepatitis B: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Chen, MB, Wang, H, Zheng, QH, Zheng, XW, Fan, JN, Ding, YL, Niu, JL
PloS one. 2019;(11):e0224773
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy of tenofovir and entecavir in nucleos(t)ide analogue-naive chronic hepatitis B. METHODS The Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Clinical Trials and China National Knowledge Infrastructure(CNKI) databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the comparison between tenofovir and entecavir in nucleos(t)ide analogue-naive chronic hepatitis B (CHB) since the date of database inception to July 2019. Two researchers independently screened and evaluated the obtained studies and extracted the outcome indexes. RevMan 5.3 software was used for the meta-analysis. RESULTS Early on, tenofovir had a greater ability to inhibit the hepatitis B virus, I2 = 0% [RR = 1.08, 95% CI (1.03, 1.13), P<0.01] (96 weeks). Entecavir can normalize the ALT levels earlier, I2 = 0% [RR = 0.87, 95% CI (0.77, 0.98), P = 0.02] (48 weeks). However, there was no statistically significant difference between TDF and ETV at 144 weeks. Tenofovir was as effective as entecavir in terms of HBeAg clearance and HBeAg seroconversion, I2 = 0% [RR = 1.05, 95% CI (0.68, 1.62), P = 0.82]; I2 = 69% [RR = 0.93, 95% CI (0.54, 1.61), P = 0.80]. The difference in the incidence of elevated creatine kinase levels was not statistically significant I2 = 0% [RR = 0.66, 95% CI (0.27, 1.60), P = 0.35]. CONCLUSIONS Tenofovir and entecavir were equally effective in the treatment of patients with nucleos(t)ide analogue-naive chronic hepatitis B. In addition, TDF has an advantage in the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma. Additional RCTs and a large-sample prospective cohort study should be performed.