Efficacy of Eye-Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing for Patients with Posttraumatic-Stress Disorder: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

We performed the first meta-analysis of clinical studies by investigating the effects of eye-movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy on the symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, and subjective distress in PTSD patients treated during the past 2 decades.

Methods

We performed a quantitative meta-analysis on the findings of 26 randomized controlled trials of EMDR therapy for PTSD published between 1991 and 2013, which were identified through the ISI Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature electronic databases, among which 22, 20, 16, and 11 of the studies assessed the effects of EMDR on the symptoms of PTSD, depression, anxiety, and subjective distress, respectively, as the primary clinical outcome.

Results

The meta-analysis revealed that the EMDR treatments significantly reduced the symptoms of PTSD (g = −0.662; 95% confidence interval (CI): −0.887 to −0.436), depression (g = −0.643; 95% CI: −0.864 to −0.422), anxiety (g = −0.640; 95% CI: −0.890 to −0.390), and subjective distress (g = −0.956; 95% CI: −1.388 to −0.525) in PTSD patients.

Conclusion

This study confirmed that EMDR therapy significantly reduces the symptoms of PTSD, depression, anxiety, and subjective distress in PTSD patients. The subgroup analysis indicated that a treatment duration of more than 60 min per session was a major contributing factor in the amelioration of anxiety and depression, and that a therapist with experience in conducting PTSD group therapy was a major contributing factor in the reduction of PTSD symptoms.     

Role of Gemcitabine and Pemetrexed as Maintenance Therapy in Advanced NSCLC: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Gemcitabine and pemetrexed have been used as maintenance therapy. However, few systematic reviews and meta-analyses have assessed their effects in the newest studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the role of gemcitabine and pemetrexed in the maintenance treatment of non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC).

Methods

We performed a literature search using PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases from their inceptions to September 16, 2015. We also searched the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) databases from 2008 to 2015. Two authors independently extracted the data. The Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias graph was used to assess the risk of bias. The GRADE system was used to assess the grading of evidence, and a meta-analysis was conducted using Stata 11.0 software.

Results

Eleven randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies were collected. Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis and divided into the following 4 groups: gemcitabine vs. best supportive care (BSC)/observation, pemetrexed vs. BSC/placebo, pemetrexed + bevacizumab vs. bevacizumab and pemetrexed vs. bevacizumab. Gemcitabine exhibited significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with BSC (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.62, p = 0.000). Pemetrexed exhibited significantly improved PFS (HR = 0.54, p = 0.000) and OS (HR = 0.75, p = 0.000) compared with BSC. Pemetrexed + bevacizumab almost exhibited significantly improved PFS (HR = 0.71, p = 0.051) compared with bevacizumab. Pemetrexed exhibited no improvement in PFS or overall survival (OS) compared with bevacizumab. Regarding the grade, the GRADE system indicated that the gemcitabine group was "MODERATE", the pemetrexed group was "HIGH", and both the pemetrexed + bevacizumab vs. bevacizumab groups and pemetrexed vs. B groups were "LOW".

Conclusions

Gemcitabine or pemetrexed compared with BSC/observation/placebo significantly improved PFS or OS. Whether pemetrexed + bevacizumab compared with bevacizumab alone significantly improves PFS requires further investigation.     

Efficacy of Supplementation with B Vitamins for Stroke Prevention: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Supplementation with B vitamins for stroke prevention has been evaluated over the years, but which combination of B vitamins is optimal for stroke prevention is unclear. We performed a network meta-analysis to assess the impact of different combinations of B vitamins on risk of stroke.

Methods

A total of 17 trials (86 393 patients) comparing 7 treatment strategies and placebo were included. A network meta-analysis combined all available direct and indirect treatment comparisons to evaluate the efficacy of B vitamin supplementation for all interventions.

Results

B vitamin supplementation was associated with reduced risk of stroke and cerebral hemorrhage. The risk of stroke was lower with folic acid plus vitamin B6 as compared with folic acid plus vitamin B12 and was lower with folic acid plus vitamin B6 plus vitamin B12 as compared with placebo or folic acid plus vitamin B12. The treatments ranked in order of efficacy for stroke, from higher to lower, were folic acid plus vitamin B6 > folic acid > folic acid plus vitamin B6 plus vitamin B12 > vitamin B6 plus vitamin B12 > niacin > vitamin B6 > placebo > folic acid plus vitamin B12.

Conclusions

B vitamin supplementation was associated with reduced risk of stroke; different B vitamins and their combined treatments had different efficacy on stroke prevention. Folic acid plus vitamin B6 might be the optimal therapy for stroke prevention. Folic acid and vitamin B6 were both valuable for stroke prevention. The efficacy of vitamin B12 remains to be studied.     

Cinacalcet in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: A Cumulative Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Calcimimetic agents lower serum parathyroid hormone levels in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD), but treatment effects on patient-relevant outcomes are uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the benefits and harms of calcimimetic therapy in adults with CKD and used cumulative meta-analysis to identify how evidence for calcimimetic treatment has developed in this clinical setting.

Methods and Findings

Cochrane and Embase databases (through February 7, 2013) were electronically searched to identify randomized trials evaluating effects of calcimimetic therapy on mortality and adverse events in adults with CKD. Two independent reviewers identified trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias.Eighteen trials comprising 7,446 participants compared cinacalcet plus conventional therapy with placebo or no treatment plus conventional therapy in adults with CKD. In moderate- to high-quality evidence (based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria) in adults with CKD stage 5D (dialysis), cinacalcet had little or no effect on all-cause mortality (relative risk, 0.97 [95% confidence interval, 0.89–1.05]), had imprecise effect on cardiovascular mortality (0.67 [0.16–2.87]), and prevented parathyroidectomy (0.49 [0.40–0.59]) and hypercalcemia (0.23 [0.05–0.97]), but increased hypocalcemia (6.98 [5.10–9.53]), nausea (2.02 [1.45–2.81]), and vomiting (1.97 [1.73–2.24]). Data for clinical outcomes were sparse in adults with CKD stages 3–5. On average, treating 1,000 people with CKD stage 5D for 1 y had no effect on survival and prevented about three patients from experiencing parathyroidectomy, whilst 60 experienced hypocalcemia and 150 experienced nausea. Analyses were limited by insufficient data in CKD stages 3–5 and kidney transplant recipients.

Conclusions

Cinacalcet reduces the need for parathyroidectomy in patients with CKD stage 5D, but does not appear to improve all-cause or cardiovascular mortality. Additional trials in CKD stage 5D are unlikely to change our confidence in the treatment effects of cinacalcet in this population. Please see later in the article for the Editors'' Summary     

Efficacy and Safety Assessment of the Addition of Bevacizumab to Adjuvant Therapy Agents in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Aim

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in the adjuvant cancer therapy setting within different subset of patients.

Methods & Design/ Results

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane and Clinical trials.gov databases were searched for English language studies of randomized controlled trials comparing bevacizumab and adjuvant therapy with adjuvant therapy alone published from January 1966 to 7^th of May 2014. Progression free survival, overall survival, overall response rate, safety and quality of life were analyzed using random- or fixed-effects models according to the PRISMA guidelines. We obtained data from 44 randomized controlled trials (30,828 patients). Combining bevacizumab with different adjuvant therapies resulted in significant improvement of progression free survival (log hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.84–0.89), overall survival (log hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94–0.98) and overall response rate (relative risk, 1.46; 95% CI: 1.33–1.59) compared to adjuvant therapy alone in all studied tumor types. In subgroup analyses, there were no interactions of bevacizumab with baseline characteristics on progression free survival and overall survival, while overall response rate was influenced by tumor type and bevacizumab dose (p-value: 0.02). Although bevacizumab use resulted in additional expected adverse drug reactions except anemia and fatigue, it was not associated with a significant decline in quality of life. There was a trend towards a higher risk of several side effects in patients treated by high-dose bevacizumab compared to the low-dose e.g. all grade proteinuria (9.24; 95% CI: 6.60–12.94 vs. 2.64; 95% CI: 1.29–5.40).

Conclusions

Combining bevacizumab with different adjuvant therapies provides a survival benefit across all major subsets of patients, including by tumor type, type of adjuvant therapy, and duration and dose of bevacizumab therapy. Though bevacizumab was associated with increased risks of some adverse drug reactions such as hypertension and bleeding, anemia and fatigue were improved by the addition of bevacizumab.     

Efficacy of Corneal Collagen Cross-Linking for Treatment of Keratoconus: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of corneal collagen cross-linking (CXL) for the treatment of keratoconus.MethodsWe performed a literature search for randomized controlled trials that assessed the effect of CXL in slowing progression of keratoconus. The primary outcome measures included changes of topographic parameters, visual acuity, and refraction. Efficacy estimates were evaluated by weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for absolute changes of the interested outcomes.ResultsSignificant decrease in mean keratometry value, maximum keratometry value and minimum keratometry value were demonstrated in the CXL group compared with the control group (WMD = -1.65; 95% CI: -2.51 to -0.80; P < 0.00001; WMD = -2.05; 95% CI: -3.10 to -1.00; P < 0.00001; WMD = -1.94; 95% CI: -2.63 to -1.26; P < 0.00001; respectively). Best spectacle-corrected visual acuity improved significantly in CXL group (WMD = -0.10; 95% CI: -0.15 to -0.05; P < 0.00001), whereas uncorrected visual acuity did not differ statistically. Manifest cylinder error decreased significantly in patients undergoing CXL procedure compared with control patients in sensitivity analysis (WMD = -0.388; 95% CI: -0.757 to -0. 019; P = 0.04). The changes in central corneal thickness and intraocular pressure were not statistically significant.ConclusionCXL may be an effective option in stabilizing keratoconus. Further long-term follow-up studies will be necessary to assess the persistence of CXL.     

Maintenance Therapy with Immunomodulatory Drugs after Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation in Patients with Multiple Myeloma: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Although high-dose therapy (HDT) with autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has been confirmed to result in longer remission time than conventional chemotherapy, multiple myeloma (MM) remains incurable. Post-ASCT maintenance is considered as a strategy for obtaining durable remissions and preventing tumor progression. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying maintenance therapy with immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) after ASCT have shown some valuable survival improvements. This meta-analysis of RCTs therefore assesses the effect of post-ASCT IMiDs maintenance on MM patients.

Methods

We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of IMiDs (thalidomide or lenalidomide) as post-ASCT maintenance therapy on the survival of newly diagnosed MM patients. The outcomes for this meta-analysis were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

Results

Eight RCTs enrolling 3514 patients were included for analysis. An obvious improvement in Os (hazard ratio [HR] 0.75) and a significant PFS advantage (HR 0.58) with post-ASCT IMiDs maintenance was revealed. Thalidomide maintenance after ASCT can result in significant benefit in Os (HR 0.72), particularly combined with corticosteroids (HR 0.66).

Conclusions

MM patients after ASCT have a significant overall survival benefit with IMiDs maintenance. IMiDs maintenance was justified for MM patients who received HDT with ASCT.     

The Effect of Statins on Mortality in Septic Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective

Statins are among the most prescribed drugs worldwide and their recently discovered anti-inflammatory effect seems to have an important role in inhibiting proinflammatory cytokine production, chemokines expression and counteracting the harmful effects of sepsis on the coagulation system. We decided to perform a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials ever published on statin therapy in septic patients to evaluate their effect on survival and length of hospital stay.

Data sources and study selection

Articles were assessed by four trained investigators, with divergences resolved by consensus. BioMedCentral, PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials were searched for pertinent studies. Inclusion criteria were random allocation to treatment and comparison of statins versus any comparator in septic patients.

Data extraction and synthesis

Data from 650 patients in 5 randomized controlled studies were analyzed. No difference in mortality between patients receiving statins versus control (44/322 [14%] in the statins group vs 50/328 [15%] in the control arm, RR = 0.90 [95% CI 0.65 to 1.26], p = 0.6) was observed. No differences in hospital stay (p = 0.7) were found.

Conclusions

Published data show that statin therapy has no effect on mortality in the overall population of adult septic patients. Scientific evidence on statins role in septic patients is still limited and larger randomized trials should be performed on this topic.     

Effect of Clazosentan in Patients with Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Cerebral vasospasm is the most important potentially treatable cause of mortality and morbidity following aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). Clazosentan, a selective endothelinreceptor antagonist, has been suggested to help reduce the incidence of vasospasm in patients with aSAH. However, the results were controversial in previous trials. This meta-analysis attempts to assess the effect of clazosentan in patients with aSAH.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We systematically searched Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from their inception until June, 2012. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to the effect of clazosentan in aSAH were included. The primary outcomes included the incidence of angiographic vasospasm, new cerebral infarction (NCI), delayed ischemic neurological deficits (DIND), and vasospasm-related morbidity/mortality (M/M); the second outcomes included the occurrence of rescue therapy, all-cause-mortality, and poor outcome. 4 RCTs were included with a total of 2156 patients. The risk of angiographic vasospasm (relative risk [RR] = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.71), DIND (RR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.92), and vasospasm-related M/M (RR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.96) were statistically significantly reduced in the clazosentan group. Patients treated with clazosentan had a reduced occurrence of rescue therapy (RR = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.79). However, no statistically significant effects were observed in NCI (RR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.04), mortality (RR = 1.03; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.49), and poor outcome (RR = 1.12; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.30).

Conclusions/Significance

Our pooling data supports that clazosentan is probably effective in preventing the occurrence of angiographic vasospasm, vasospasm-related DIND, vasospasm related M/M, and rescue therapy. However, no evidence lends significant supports to the benefits of clazosentan in decreasing the occurrence of NCI, mortality or improving the functional outcome.     

Dezocine for Preventing Postoperative Pain: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Dezocine is considered to be an alternative medication for managing postoperative pain. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of this drug in this regard.

Methods

Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL) were searched to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compare dezocine with placebo or dezocine with morphine on postoperative pain. The data were extracted and pooled using Mantel-Haenszel random effects model. Heterogeneity was tested using the I ² statistic with values >50% and Chi² test with P ≤ 0.05 indicating obvious heterogeneity between the studies.

Results

Seven trials evaluating 665 patients were included. The number of patients with at least 50% pain relief was increased (N = 234; RR 3.04, 95% CI 2.27 to 4.08) and physician (N = 465; RR 2.84, 95% CI 1.66 to 4.84) and patient satisfaction (N = 390; RR 2.81, 95% CI 1.85 to 4.26) were improved following the administration of dezocine compared with the placebo. The effects of dezocine were similar to those of morphine in terms of the number of patients reporting at least 50% pain relief within 2–6 h after surgery (N = 235; RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.46) and physician (N = 234; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.49) and patient (N = 158; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.92) satisfaction. While, the number of patients with at least 50% pain relief within 0–1 h after surgery increased following dezocine compared with morphine treatment (N = 79; RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.77). There was no difference in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) following dezocine treatment compared with the placebo (N = 391; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.68) or morphine treatment (N = 235; RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.93).

Conclusion

Dezocine is a promising analgesic for preventing postoperative pain, but further studies are required to evaluate its safety.     

Efficacy and Safety of Gemcitabine-Fluorouracil Combination Therapy in the Management of Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Gemcitabine (GEM) is the standard first-line chemotherapy that provides limited clinical benefits for patients with locally advanced/metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (LA/MPC). However, the fluorouracil derivatives (CAP and S-1) show promising efficacy in these patients. This study compared the efficacy and safety of GEM with GEM plus fluorouracil drugs in the treatment of LA/MPC.

Methods

Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials published on or before January 2014. The Cochrane Collaboration''s tool was used to assess the risk of bias in randomized trials. The primary end point was overall survival (OS); the secondary end points were one-year survival rate, objective response rate (ORR) and toxicity rates (TRs).

Results

A total of 8 randomized controlled trials involving 2,126 patients were included in the systematic evaluation. The results showed that OS was significantly improved (HR 0.83, P<0.01; HR 0.87, P = 0.03; HR 0.80, P = 0.01; respectively) and ORR was significantly increased (OR 0.51, P<0.01; OR 0.66, P = 0.03; OR 0.35, P<0.01; respectively) in the GEM+5-FU/CAP/S-1, GEM+CAP and GEM+S-1 groups compared to the GEM alone group. In addition, the one-year survival rate was significantly increased (OR 0.78 P = 0.01; OR 0.47, P = 0.04; respectively) in the GEM+5-FU/CAP/S-1 and GEM+S-1 groups compared to the GEM alone group. The frequency of grade 3/4 TRs were higher in GEM+5-FU/CAP/S-1 group, the significant increase of grade 3/4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and diarrhea were observed.

Conclusions

GEM combined with fluorouracil drugs significantly improved OS and increased one-year survival rate and ORR compared to GEM alone in LA/MPC patients. GEM combined with fluorouracil drugs may be considered as an acceptable alternative treatment for LA/MPC patients.     

Clinical Efficacy of Including Capecitabine in Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Capecitabine has proven effective as a chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. Though several Phase II/III studies of capecitabine as neoadjuvant chemotherapy have been conducted, the results still remain inconsistent. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to obtain more precise understanding of the role of capecitabine in neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer patients.

Methods

The electronic database PubMed and online abstracts from ASCO and SABCS were searched to identify randomized clinical trials comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without capecitabine in early/operable breast cancer patients without distant metastasis. Risk ratios were used to estimate the association between capecitabine in neoadjuvant chemotherapy and various efficacy outcomes. Fixed- or random-effect models were adopted to pool data in RevMan 5.1.

Results

Five studies were included in the meta-analysis. Neoadjuvant use of capecitabine with anthracycline and/or taxane based therapy was not associated with significant improvement in clinical outcomes including: pathologic complete response in breast (pCR; RR = 1.10, 95% CI 0.87–1.40, p = 0.43), pCR in breast tumor and nodes (tnpCR RR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.83–1.18, p = 0.90), overall response rate (ORR; RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.94–1.07, p = 0.93), or breast-conserving surgery (BCS; RR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.93–1.04, p = 0.49).

Conclusions

Neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer involving capecitabine did not significantly improve pCR, tnpCR, BCS or ORR. Thus adding capecitabine to neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimes is unlikely to improve outcomes in breast cancer patients without distant metastasis. Further research is required to establish the condition that capecitabine may be useful in breast cancer neoadjuvant chemotherapy.     

Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Lispro in Obese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Retrospective Meta-Analysis of 7 Randomized Controlled Trials

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of insulin lispro in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) who had a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m² (obese) compared with patients with BMIs < 30 kg/m² (nonobese).MethodsA retrospective analysis of predefined endpoints from 7 randomized clinical trials of T2DM patients treated with insulin lispro was performed. The primary efficacy measure was to assess the noninferiority of insulin lispro in obese patients versus nonobese patients as measured by the change in hemoglobin A1C (HbA_1c) from baseline to Month 3 (n = 1,518), using a noninferiority margin of 0.4%. The secondary measures included overall hypoglycemia incidence and event rates and relative change in body weight.ResultsMean changes in HbA_1c from baseline (9.06% for obese and 8.92% for nonobese) to Month 3 were similar for obese patients (–1.03%) and nonobese (–1.02%), with a least squares (LS) mean difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) of –0.05% (–0.17%, 0.07%; P = .384). The overall incidence of hypoglycemia (53% vs. 63%; P < .001) and rate of hypoglycemia (0.93 vs. 1.76 events per 30 days; P < .001) was significantly lower in obese patients compared with nonobese patients. The 2 BMI cohorts did not demonstrate a significant difference in mean percent changes in body weights (LS mean difference = 0.4% [–0.2%, 0.9%]; P = .202).ConclusionObese patients with T2DM treated with insulin lispro were able to achieve the same level of glycemic control as their nonobese counterparts, with some evidence supporting a reduced risk of hypoglycemia. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20:389-398)     

Efficacy of Thermotherapy to Treat Cutaneous Leishmaniasis: A Meta-Analysis of Controlled Clinical Trials

Introduction

The efficacy of thermotherapy for the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis presents diverse results with low statistical power.

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy of thermotherapy to treat cutaneous leishmaniasis.

Methods

A meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials in 12 databases based on the implementation of a research protocol with inclusion and exclusion criteria and an assessment of methodological quality. The reproducibility and completeness were guaranteed in the information search and extraction. Heterogeneity, sensitivity and publication bias were assessed by graphical methods (Galbraith, L''Abblé, funnel plot, Egger plot, and influence plot) and analytical methods (DerSimonian-Laird, Begg and Egger). Random-effects forest plots were constructed, and a cumulative meta-analysis was performed.

Results

Eight studies were included with 622 patients who underwent thermotherapy, with an efficacy of 73.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 69.6-76.7%), and with 667 patients who underwent systemic treatment, with an efficacy of 70.6% (95% CI=67.1-74.1%). Heterogeneity between studies, good sensitivity for the combined measure, and no publication bias were observed. The relative risk for comparison of the efficacy of treatment was 1.02 (95%CI=0.91, 1.15), showing that the effectiveness of thermotherapy is equal to that of pentavalent antimonial drugs.

Conclusion

Due to its efficacy, greater safety and lower cost, thermotherapy should be the first treatment option for cutaneous leishmaniasis in areas where the prevalence of the mucocutaneous form is low and in patients with contraindications to systemic treatment, such as kidney, liver and heart diseases, as well as in pregnant women, infants, and patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection/acquired immune deficiency syndrome.     

Merocel versus Nasopore for Nasal Packing: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective

To compare the clinical outcomes, including efficacy and complications, of Merocel versus Nasopore as a nasal packing material after nasal surgery.

Methods

Relevant randomized controlled trials were identified from electronic databases (The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Chinese Biomedical Database). Conference proceedings and references from identified trials and review articles were also searched. Outcome measures were pain during nasal packing, pain and bleeding upon packing removal, pressure sensation, nasal blockage, formation of synechiae, mucosal healing, and patients'' general satisfaction.

Results

Seven randomized controlled trials met criteria for analysis. Compared with Merocel, Nasopore significantly reduced patients'' subjective symptoms including in situ pain (pain experienced while packing is in place), nasal pressure, pain and bleeding during packing removal, and increased patients'' general satisfaction with nasal packing. There were no significant differences in nasal obstruction, adhesion and mucosal healing between the Merocel and Nasopore groups.

Conclusions

Preliminary evidence suggests that Nasopore may be superior to Merocel as a nasal packing material with regard to in situ pain, pain and bleeding upon removal, pressure, and general satisfaction and does not differ from Merocel in terms of nasal obstruction, tissue adhesion, and long-term mucosal healing.     

Propofol versus Midazolam for Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Cirrhotic Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BackgroundSedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy is often achieved using propofol or midazolam in general population. However, impaired protein synthesis, altered drug metabolism, and compromised hepatic blood flow in patients with liver cirrhosis might affect the pharmacokinetics of sedatives, placing cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy at a greater risk of adverse events. The objective of this study was to assess comparative efficacies and safety of propofol and midazolam in cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy.MethodsRandomized, controlled trials comparing propofol with midazolam in cirrhotic patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy were selected. We performed the meta-analysis, using a random-effect model, the Review Manager, Version 5.2, statistical software package (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) according to the PRISMA guidelines.ResultsFive studies between 2003 and 2012, including 433 patients, were included. Propofol provided a shorter time to sedation (weight mean difference: -2.76 min, 95% confidence interval: -3.00 to -2.51) and a shorter recovery time (weight mean difference -6.17 min, 95% confidence interval: -6.81 to -5.54) than midazolam did. No intergroup difference in the incidence of hypotension, bradycardia, or hypoxemia was observed. Midazolam was associated with the deterioration of psychometric scores for a longer period than propofol.ConclusionThis meta-analysis suggests that Propofol sedation for endoscopy provides more rapid sedation and recovery than midazolam does. The risk of sedation-related side effects for propofol does not differ significantly from that of midazolam. The efficacy of propofol in cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy is superior to those of midazolam.     

Comparison of Clinical Efficacy and Safety between Indacaterol and Tiotropium in COPD: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Two once-daily inhaled bronchodilators, indacaterol and tiotropium, are widely used as first-line therapy in stable COPD patients. This study was performed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety between indacaterol and tiotropium in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to identify all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) at week 12. Four RCTs were eligible for inclusion (three RCTs with moderate-to-severe COPD patients and one RCT with only severe COPD patients). Trough FEV₁ at weeks 12 and 26 were not significantly different between indacaterol and tiotropium by the standardized mean difference with 0.014 (95% CI, -0.036, 0.063, I²= 23.5%) and with 0.037 (95% CI, -0.059 to 0.133, I²= 0%) along with differences in means of 0.003L and 0.014L, respectively. Indacaterol and tiotropium also showed similar St. George`s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total scores and percentages of patients with SGRQ improvement (≥ 4 units) at week 26. The incidences of nasopharyngitis, serious cardiovascular events, and serious adverse events were not different between indacaterol and tiotropium, while those of cough (OR = 1.68, P < 0.001, and RR = 1.63) and COPD worsening (OR = 1.18, P = 0.003, and RR = 1.12) were higher for indacaterol than tiotropium. However, when one study with only severe COPD patients was removed from the meta-analysis, the difference in the incidence of COPD worsening between indacaterol and tiotropium became non-significant (OR = 1.13, P = 0.204, and RR = 1.09). The clinical efficacy and serious adverse events between indacaterol and tiotropium were equivocal in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Cough is a common complaint associated with indacaterol, and COPD worsening needs to be carefully monitored in severe COPD patients when treated with indacaterol.     

Efficacy of Anti-Interleukin-5 Therapy with Mepolizumab in Patients with Asthma: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trials

Background

Interleukin (IL)-5 is believed to be a key cytokine in eosinophil inflammatory infiltration in asthma. Previous clinical trials have evaluated the efficacy and safety of mepolizumab, a monoclonal antibody against IL-5, in patients with asthma. However, most of these studies were small, the conclusions were inconsistent, and the precise effects are therefore debatable.

Methods

A meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials was conducted to evaluate the effect of intravenous infusion of mepolizumab on clinical outcomes in patients with asthma. Trials were searched in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, reviews, and reference lists of relevant articles. The outcome variables analyzed included eosinophil counts in blood and sputum, airways outcome measures, exacerbations, asthma control, and quality of life scores.

Results

Seven studies met final inclusion criteria (total n = 1131). From the pooled analyses, mepolizumab significantly reduced eosinophils in blood (MD −0.29×10⁹/L, 95% CI −0.44 to −0.14×10⁹/L, P = 0.0001) and sputum (MD −6.05%, 95% CI −9.34 to −2.77%, P = 0.0003). Mepolizumab was also associated with significantly decreased exacerbation risk than placebo (OR 0.30, 95%CI 0.13 to 0.67, P = 0.004), and with a significant improvement in the scores on the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) (MD 0.26, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.49, P = 0.03) in patients with eosinophilic asthma. There were no statistical differences between the groups with respect to FEV₁, PEF, or histamine PC₂₀ (all P>0.05)_, and a non-significant trend for improvement in scores on the Juniper Asthma Control Questionnaire (JACQ) (MD −0.21, 95% CI −0.43 to 0.01, P = 0.06) in the mepolizumab group was observed.

Conclusions

Mepolizumab reduces the risk of exacerbations and improves quality of life in patients with eosinophilic asthma, but no significant improvement in lung function outcomes was observed. Further research is required to establish the possible role of anti–IL-5 as a therapy for asthma.