0
selected
-
1.
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.
-
2.
Comparative efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib and peficitinib as monotherapy for active rheumatoid arthritis.
Ho Lee, Y, Gyu Song, G
Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics. 2020;(4):674-681
Abstract
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE Several clinical trials have attempted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib and peficitinib as monotherapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but their relative efficacy and safety as monotherapy remain unclear due to the lack of data from head-to-head comparison trials. The relative efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib and peficitinib as monotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were assessed. METHODS We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine direct and indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and examine the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib and peficitinib as monotherapy relative to placebo in patients with RA. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Five RCTs comprising 1547 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with placebo, tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib and peficitinib as monotherapy showed a significantly higher American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response rate. Peficitinib 150 mg monotherapy showed the highest ACR20 response rate (odds ratio, 17.24.39; 95% credible interval, 6.57-51.80). The ranking probability based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve indicated that peficitinib 150 mg had the highest probability of being the best treatment for achieving the ACR20 response rate, followed by peficitinib 100 mg, filgotinib 200 mg, filgotinib 100 mg, tofacitinib 5 mg, upadacitinib 15 mg, baricitinib 4 mg and placebo. However, the number of patients who experienced serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the JAK inhibitors, except for tofacitinib 5 mg, and placebo. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION All five JAK inhibitors-tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib and peficitinib-were efficacious monotherapy interventions for active RA, and differences were noted in their efficacy and safety in monotherapy.
-
3.
Comparison of the Use of Vonoprazan and Proton Pump Inhibitors for the Treatment of Peptic Ulcers Resulting from Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
He, HS, Li, BY, Chen, QT, Song, CY, Shi, J, Shi, B
Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research. 2019;:1169-1176
Abstract
BACKGROUND Currently, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the first-line treatment for ulcers resulting from endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Vonoprazan is a new oral potassium-competitive acid blocker (P-CAB). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerance of vonoprazan with PPIs in the treatment of peptic ulcers resulting from ESD. MATERIAL AND METHODS Published results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing vonoprazan with PPIs in the treatment of ulcers resulting from ESD were identified up to March 2018. The main clinical endpoints evaluated were healing rate and adverse events. The meta-analysis included quality assessment of the studies, statistical analysis of endpoints, and sensitivity analysis using Revman version 5.3 meta-analysis software. RESULTS Systematic literature review identified seven published studies that included 548 patients. Five studies were published as full-text manuscripts, and two studies were published as abstracts. Meta-analysis of the vonoprazan treatment, compared with PPI treatment, for ESD showed that the pooled relative risk (RR) of healing rate was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.33-1.22) for the 4-week study group and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.84-1.15) for the 8-week study group. The RR for adverse events was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.31-1.38) (P>0.05). No statistical evidence of publication bias was found. CONCLUSIONS The findings of the systematic review and meta-analysis showed that the efficacy of vonoprazan was comparable with PPIs for the treatment of peptic ulcers following ESD. Further studies are required to support the safety and efficacy of vonoprazan compared with different types of PPIs.
-
4.
The efficacy of vonoprazan for management of post-endoscopic submucosal dissection ulcers compared with proton pump inhibitors: A meta-analysis.
Liu, C, Feng, BC, Zhang, Y, Li, LX, Zuo, XL, Li, YQ
Journal of digestive diseases. 2019;(10):503-511
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Artificial ulcers after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are usually treated by proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in clinical setting. Vonoprazan, a newly developed potassium-competitive acid blocker, has recently been used to treat post-ESD ulcers. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan on the healing of post-ESD artificial ulcers compared with those of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) using a meta-analysis. METHODS EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases were searched for all studies comparing the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan with those of PPIs in the treatment of post-ESD ulcers. RESULTS Fourteen articles with 1328 patients were included in this meta-analysis. When comparing ulcer shrinkage rate, vonoprazan showed a better efficacy than PPIs (mean difference 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.18-0.93). Vonoprazan also led to a higher scar formation rate (odds ratio [OR] 1.58, 95% CI 1.00-2.47) and showed a potential superiority on reducing the risk of post-ESD bleeding compared with PPIs, with a pooled OR of 0.69, although there was no statistically significant difference. CONCLUSIONS Compared with PPIs, vonoprazan showed a better efficacy in ulcer shrinkage rate and achieved more complete healing in the treatment of post-ESD ulcers. Vonoprazan did not induce any incremental risk of post-ESD bleeding as well. It may be an appropriate choice in the management of artificial ulcers after ESD.