1.
Pitavastatin for lowering lipids.
Adams, SP, Alaeiilkhchi, N, Wright, JM
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2020;(6):CD012735
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pitavastatin is the newest statin on the market, and the dose-related magnitude of effect of pitavastatin on blood lipids is not known. OBJECTIVES Primary objective To quantify the effects of various doses of pitavastatin on the surrogate markers: LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and triglycerides in participants with and without cardiovascular disease. To compare the effect of pitavastatin on surrogate markers with other statins. Secondary objectives To quantify the effect of various doses of pitavastatin on withdrawals due to adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for trials up to March 2019: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 2, 2019), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA RCT and controlled before-and-after studies evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of pitavastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks in participants of any age with and without cardiovascular disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for studies to be included, and extracted data. We entered data from RCT and controlled before-and-after studies into Review Manager 5 as continuous and generic inverse variance data, respectively. Withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAE) information was collected from the RCTs. We assessed all included trials using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool under the categories of allocation (selection bias), blinding (performance bias and detection bias), incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), selective reporting (reporting bias), and other potential sources of bias. MAIN RESULTS Forty-seven studies (five RCTs and 42 before-and-after studies) evaluated the dose-related efficacy of pitavastatin in 5436 participants. The participants were of any age with and without cardiovascular disease, and pitavastatin effects were studied within a treatment period of three to 12 weeks. Log dose-response data over doses of 1 mg to 16 mg revealed strong linear dose-related effects on blood total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol and triglycerides. There was no dose-related effect of pitavastatin on blood HDL cholesterol, which was increased by 4% on average by pitavastatin. Pitavastatin 1 mg/day to 16 mg/day reduced LDL cholesterol by 33.3% to 54.7%, total cholesterol by 23.3% to 39.0% and triglycerides by 13.0% to 28.1%. For every two-fold dose increase, there was a 5.35% (95% CI 3.32 to 7.38) decrease in blood LDL cholesterol, a 3.93% (95% CI 2.35 to 5.50) decrease in blood total cholesterol and a 3.76% (95% CI 1.03 to 6.48) decrease in blood triglycerides. The certainty of evidence for these effects was judged to be high. When compared to other statins for its effect to reduce LDL cholesterol, pitavastatin is about 6-fold more potent than atorvastatin, 1.7-fold more potent than rosuvastatin, 77-fold more potent than fluvastatin and 3.3-fold less potent than cerivastatin. For the placebo group, there were no participants who withdrew due to an adverse effect per 109 subjects and for all doses of pitavastatin, there were three participants who withdrew due to an adverse effect per 262 subjects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Pitavastatin lowers blood total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and triglyceride in a dose-dependent linear fashion. Based on the effect on LDL cholesterol, pitavastatin is about 6-fold more potent than atorvastatin, 1.7-fold more potent than rosuvastatin, 77-fold more potent than fluvastatin and 3.3-fold less potent than cerivastatin. There were not enough data to determine risk of withdrawal due to adverse effects due to pitavastatin.
2.
Efficacy of Montelukast in Allergic Rhinitis Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Krishnamoorthy, M, Mohd Noor, N, Mat Lazim, N, Abdullah, B
Drugs. 2020;(17):1831-1851
Abstract
BACKGROUND In treating allergic rhinitis, montelukast has the potential to be used as an alternative or addition to an oral antihistamine or intranasal corticosteroid. OBJECTIVE The objective of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of montelukast in treating allergic rhinitis. METHODS An electronic literature search was performed using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and MEDLINE from 1966 to 21 January 2019. The eligibility criteria were randomized controlled trials comparing montelukast with placebo or other standard treatments. The primary outcomes assessed were daytime nasal symptom score (DNS) and night-time nasal symptom score (NNS). The secondary outcomes assessed were composite nasal symptom score (CSS), daytime eyes symptom score (DES), and rhinoconjunctivitis quality-of-life questionnaires (RQLQ). The meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.3 software based on the random-effects model. RESULTS Fifteen studies of 10387 participants met the inclusion criteria. Montelukast was more effective than placebo in improving DNS (mean difference [MD] - 0.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.15 to - 0.08; p < 0.001), NNS (MD - 0.09, 95% CI - 0.13 to - 0.05; p < 0.001), CSS (MD - 0.08, 95% CI - 0.11 to - 0.06; p < 0.001), DES (MD - 0.17, 95% CI - 0.33 to - 0.02; p < 0.030), and RQLQ (MD - 0.34, 95% CI - 0.49 to - 0.20; p < 0.001). Oral antihistamine was superior to montelukast in improving DNS (MD 0.08, 95% CI 0.03-0.13; p = 0.002), CSS (MD 0.03, 95% CI - 0.02 to 0.07; p = 0.27), DES (MD 0.06, 95% CI 0-0.12; p = 0.040), and RQLQ (MD 0.03, 95% CI - 0.05 to 0.12; p = 0.430). Montelukast was superior to oral antihistamine in improving NNS (MD -0.03, 95% CI - 0.08 to 0.03; p = 0.330). Intranasal fluticasone spray was superior to montelukast in improving DNS (MD 0.71, 95% CI 0.44-0.99; p < 0.001) and NNS (MD 0.63, 95% CI 0.29-0.97; p < 0.001). Combined montelukast and oral antihistamine was superior to oral antihistamine in improving DNS (MD - 0.15, 95% CI - 0.27 to - 0.03; p = 0.010), NNS (MD - 0.16, 95% CI - 0.28 to - 0.05; p = 0.006), CSS (MD - 0.12, 95% CI - 0.25 to - 0.01; p = 0.070), DES (MD - 0.12, 95% CI - 0.30 to 0.06; p = 0.180), and RQLQ (MD - 0.10, 95% CI - 0.28 to 0.08; p = 0.290). Combined montelukast and OAH was superior to montelukast in improving DNS (MD 0.15, 95% CI 0.08-0.21; p < 0.001), NNS (MD 0.05, 95% CI - 0.09 to 0.19; p = 0.510), CSS (MD 0.1, 95% CI 0.03-0.17; p = 0.007), DES (MD 0.18, 95% CI 0-0.36; p = 0.050), and RQLQ (MD 0.07 95% CI - 0.15 to 0.29; p = 0.530). CONCLUSIONS Montelukast is more effective than placebo in treating the overall symptoms of allergic rhinitis while the combined therapy of montelukast and an oral antihistamine is superior to either montelukast or an oral antihistamine alone.
3.
Montelukast and Nasal Corticosteroids to Treat Pediatric Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Liming, BJ, Ryan, M, Mack, D, Ahmad, I, Camacho, M
Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. 2019;(4):594-602
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To systematically review the literature on anti-inflammatory medications for treating pediatric obstructive sleep apnea and perform meta-analysis of the available data. DATA SOURCES PubMed/MEDLINE and 4 additional databases. REVIEW METHODS Three authors independently and systematically searched through June 28, 2018, for studies that assessed anti-inflammatory therapy for treatment of pediatric obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Data were compiled and analyzed using Review Manager 5.3 (Nordic Cochrane Centre). RESULTS After screening 135 studies, 32 were selected for review with 6 meeting inclusion criteria. In total, 668 patients aged 2 to 5 years met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Of these, 5 studies (166 children) that evaluated montelukast alone as treatment for pediatric OSA found a 55% improvement in the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) (mean [SD] 6.2 [3.1] events/h pretreatment and 2.8 [2.7] events/h posttreatment; mean difference [MD] of -2.7 events/h; 95% confidence interval [CI], -5.6 to 0.3) with improvement in lowest oxygen saturation (LSAT) from 89.5 (6.9) to 92.1 (3.6) (MD, 2.2; 95% CI, 0.5-4.0). Two studies (502 children) observing the effects of montelukast with intranasal corticosteroids on pediatric OSA found a 70% improvement in AHI (4.7 [2.1] events/h pretreatment and 1.4 [1.0] events/h posttreatment; MD of -4.2 events/h; 95% CI, -6.3 to -2.0), with an improvement in LSAT from 87.8 (3.1) to 92.6 (2.2) (MD, 4.8; 95% CI, 4.5-5.1). CONCLUSIONS Treatment with montelukast and intranasal steroids or montelukast alone is potentially beneficial for short-term management of mild pediatric OSA.