Meta-analysis of benzodiazepine use in the treatment of acute alcohol withdrawal

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the evidence for the efficacy and potential harmful effects of benzodiazepines compared with other therapies in the treatment of acute alcohol withdrawal. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry were searched for English-language articles published from 1966 to December 1997 that described randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of benzodiazepines in the treatment of acute alcohol withdrawal. Key words included "benzodiazepines" (exploded) and "randomized controlled trial." Bibliographies of relevant articles were reviewed for additional RCTs, and manufacturers of benzodiazepines were asked to submit additional RCT reports not in the literature. STUDY SELECTION: Articles were considered for the meta-analysis if they were RCTs involving patients experiencing acute alcohol withdrawal and comparing a benzodiazepine available in Canada with placebo or an active control drug. Of the original 23 trials identified, 11 met these criteria, representing a total of 1286 patients. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted regarding the participants, the setting, details of the intervention, the outcomes (including adverse effects) and the methodologic quality of the studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: The meta-analysis of benefit (therapeutic success within 2 days) showed that benzodiazepines were superior to placebo (common odds ratio [OR] 3.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.30-8.28). Data on comparisons between benzodiazepines and other drugs, including beta-blockers, carbamazepine and clonidine, could not be pooled, but none of the alternative drugs was found to be clearly more beneficial than the benzodiazepines. The meta-analysis of harm revealed no significant difference between benzodiazepines and alternative drugs in terms of adverse events (common OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.34-1.32) or dropout rates (common OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.47-0.97). INTERPRETATION: Benzodiazepines should remain the drugs of choice for the treatment of acute alcohol withdrawal.     

Internet-Delivered Cognitive Behavioral Therapy to Treat Insomnia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Insomnia is of major public health importance. While cognitive behavioral therapy is beneficial, in-person treatment is often unavailable. We assessed the effectiveness of internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia.

Objectives

The primary objectives were to determine whether online cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia could improve sleep efficiency and reduce the severity of insomnia in adults. Secondary outcomes included sleep quality, total sleep time, time in bed, sleep onset latency, wake time after sleep onset, and number of nocturnal awakenings.

Data Sources

We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library, Embase, and the Web of Science for randomized trials.

Methods

Studies were eligible if they were randomized controlled trials in adults that reported application of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia via internet delivery. Mean differences in improvement in sleep measures were calculated using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis.

Results

We found 15 trials, all utilizing a pretest-posttest randomized control group design. Sleep efficiency was 72% at baseline and improved by 7.2% (95% CI: 5.1%, 9.3%; p<0.001) with internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy versus control. Internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy resulted in a decrease in the insomnia severity index by 4.3 points (95% CI: -7.1, -1.5; p = 0.017) compared to control. Total sleep time averaged 5.7 hours at baseline and increased by 20 minutes with internet-delivered therapy versus control (95% CI: 9, 31; p = 0.004). The severity of depression decreased by 2.3 points (95% CI: -2.9, -1.7; p = 0.013) in individuals who received internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy compared to control. Improvements in sleep efficiency, the insomnia severity index and depression scores with internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy were maintained from 4 to 48 weeks after post-treatment assessment. There were no statistically significant differences between sleep efficiency, total sleep time, and insomnia severity index for internet-delivered versus in-person therapy with a trained therapist.

Conclusion

In conclusion, internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy is effective in improving sleep in adults with insomnia. Efforts should be made to educate the public and expand access to this therapy. Registration Number, Prospero: CRD42015017622     

Suvorexant for Primary Insomnia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trials

Objective

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials evaluating suvorexant for primary insomnia.

Methods

Relevant studies were identified through searches of PubMed, databases of the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO citations through June 27, 2015. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of suvorexant trial efficacy and safety outcomes. The primary efficacy outcomes were either subjective total sleep time (sTST) or subjective time-to-sleep onset (sTSO) at 1 month. The secondary outcomes were other efficacy outcomes, discontinuation rate, and individual adverse events. The risk ratio, number-needed-to-treat/harm, and weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on a random effects model were calculated.

Results

The computerized literature database search initially yielded 48 results, from which 37 articles were excluded following a review of titles and abstracts and another eight review articles after full-text review. Thus, we identified 4 trials that included a total of 3,076 patients. Suvorexant was superior to placebo with regard to the two primary efficacy outcomes (sTST: WMD = −20.16, 95% CI = −25.01 to −15.30, 1889 patients, 3 trials, sTSO: WMD = −7.62, 95% CI = −11.03 to −4.21, 1889 patients, 3 trials) and was not different from placebo in trial discontinuations. Suvorexant caused a higher incidence than placebo of at least one side effects, abnormal dreams, somnolence, excessive daytime sleepiness/sedation, fatigue, dry mouth, and rebound insomnia.

Conclusions

Our analysis of published trial results suggests that suvorexant is effective in treating primary insomnia and is well-tolerated.     

Efficacy of Modafinil on Fatigue and Excessive Daytime Sleepiness Associated with Neurological Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Modafinil is a novel wake-promoting agent approved by the FDA ameliorating excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) in three disorders: narcolepsy, shift work sleep disorder and obstructive sleep apnea. Existing trials of modafinil for fatigue and EDS associated with neurological disorders provided inconsistent results. This meta-analysis was aimed to assess drug safety and effects of modafinil on fatigue and EDS associated with neurological disorders.

Methods

A comprehensive literature review was conducted in order to identify published studies assessing the effects of modafinil on fatigue and EDS associated with neurological disorders. Primary outcomes included fatigue and EDS. Secondary outcomes included depression and adverse effects.

Findings

Ten randomized controlled trials were identified including 4 studies of Parkinson’s disease (PD), 3 of multiple sclerosis (MS), 2 of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and 1 of post-polio syndrome (PPS). A total of 535 patients were enrolled. Our results suggested a therapeutic effect of modafinil on fatigue in TBI (MD -0.82 95% CI -1.54 - -0.11 p=0.02, I²=0%), while a beneficial effect of modafinil on fatigue was not confirmed in the pooled studies of PD or MS. Treatment results demonstrated a clear beneficial effect of modafinil on EDS in patients with PD (MD -2.45 95% CI -4.00 - -0.91 p=0.002 I²=14%), but not with MS and TBI. No difference was seen between modafinil and placebo treatments in patients with PPS. Modafinil seemed to have no therapeutic effect on depression. Adverse events were similar between modafinil and placebo groups except that more patients were found with insomnia and nausea in modafinil group.

Conclusions

Existing trials of modafinil for fatigue and EDS associated with PD, MS, TBI and PPS provided inconsistent results. The majority of the studies had small sample sizes. Modafinil is not yet sufficient to be recommended for these medical conditions until solid data are available.     

Rotigotine Transdermal Patch in Parkinson’s Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Methods

The efficacy and safety of rotigotine transdermal patch in Parkinson’s disease (PD) were studied in some clinical trials. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of rotigotine transdermal patch versus placebo in PD.

Results

Six randomized controlled trials (1789 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. As compared with placebo, the use of rotigotine resulted in greater improvements in Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale activities of daily living score (weighted mean difference [WMD] –1.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] –2.18 to –1.19), motor score (WMD –3.86, 95% CI –4.86 to –2.86), and the activities of daily living and motor subtotal score (WMD –4.52, 95% CI –5.86 to –3.17). Rotigotine was associated with a significantly higher rate of withdrawals due to adverse events (relative risk [RR] 1.82, 95% CI 1.29–2.59), and higher rates of application site reactions (RR 2.92, 95% CI 2.29–3.72), vomiting (RR 5.18, 95% CI 2.25–11.93), and dyskinesia (RR 2.52, 95% CI 1.47–4.32) compared with placebo. No differences were found in the relative risks of headache, constipation, back pain, diarrhea, or serious adverse events.

Conclusions

Our meta-analysis showed that the use of rotigotine can reduce the symptoms of PD. However, rotigotine was also associated with a higher incidence of adverse events, especially application site reactions, compared with placebo.     

Zopiclone versus placebo for short-term treatment of insomnia in patients with advanced cancer: study protocol for a double-blind,randomized, placebo-controlled,clinical multicenter trial

Background

Despite the high prevalence of insomnia in patients with advanced cancer, there are no randomized controlled trials on pharmacological interventions for insomnia in this group of patients. A variety of pharmacological agents is recommended to manage sleep disturbance for insomnia in the general population, but their efficacy and safety in adults with advanced cancer are not established. Thus, there is a need to evaluate the effectiveness of medications for insomnia in order to improve the evidence in patients with advanced cancer. One of the most used sleep medications at present in patients with cancer is zopiclone.

Methods

This is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter trial. A total of 100 patients with metastatic cancer who report insomnia will be randomly allocated to zopiclone or placebo. The treatment duration with zopiclone/placebo is 6 consecutive nights. The primary endpoint is patient-reported sleep quality during the final study night (night 6) assessed on a numerical rating scale of 0–10, where 0?=?Best sleep and 10?=?Worst possible sleep. Secondary endpoints include the mean patient-reported total sleep time and sleep onset latency during the final study night (night 6).

Discussion

Results from this study on treatment of insomnia in advanced cancer will contribute to clinical decision-making and improve the treatment of sleep disturbance in this patient cohort.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02807922. Registered on 21 June 2016.

     

Head-to-Head Comparison of Sirolimus-Eluting Stents versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Meta-Analysis of 76 Studies

Background

The relative short-, long- and overall-term efficacy and safety of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES, Cypher) compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES, Taxus) in large head-to-head comparisons still remain to be defined.

Methods

We searched Pubmed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for articles comparing outcomes of interest between SES and PES without language restriction. Short- (≤1 year), long- (>1 year), and overall-term (the longest follow-up of each study) outcomes were evaluated. The primary endpoint was target lesion revascularization (TLR). Other outcomes of interest were target vessel revascularization (TVR), myocardial infarction, all-cause death, cardiac death, stent thrombosis, major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), restenosis and late lumen loss.

Results

Seventy-six studies including more than 15000 patients in randomized controlled trials and over 70000 patients in adjusted observational studies were included. At overall-term follow-up, SES significantly reduced TLR (relative risk [RR]: 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49–0.76), TVR (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.54–0.83), MACE (RR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.72–0.87), myocardial infarction (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.73–0.99), in-segment restenosis (RR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.38–0.65), and in-segment late lumen loss (weighted mean difference [WMD]: −0.19; 95% CI: −0.24–−0.14) in randomized controlled trials compared with PES. In addition, lower rates of death (RR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.83–1.00), any stent thrombosis (RR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.45–0.86), definite stent thrombosis (RR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.45–0.77) were found in patients receiving SES in adjusted observational studies. Largely similar results were found at short- and long-term follow-up, and in patients with diabetes, acute myocardial infarction or long lesions.

Conclusions

SES significantly reduced the short-, long- and overall-term risk of TLR/TVR, MACE, and restenosis, and overall-term risk of myocardial infarction in randomized controlled trials, as compared with PES. Lower rates of death and stent thrombosis were also observed in observational studies in SES-treated patients.     

Prevention of Chronic Kidney Disease and Subsequent Effect on Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objectives

To perform a systematic review of randomized controlled trials to determine whether prevention or slowing of progression of chronic kidney disease would translate into improved mortality, and if so, the attributable risk due to CKD itself on mortality.

Background

CKD is associated with increased mortality. This association is largely based on evidence from the observational studies and evidence from randomized controlled trials is lacking.

Methods

We searched Ovid, Medline and Embase for RCTs in which an intervention was given to prevent or slow the progression of CKD and mortality was reported as primary, secondary or adverse outcomes were eligible and selected. For the first phase, pooled relative risks for renal endpoints were assessed. For the second phase, we assessed the effect on mortality in trials of interventions that definitively reduced CKD endpoints.

Results

Among 52 studies selected in first phase, only renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system blockade vs. placebo (n = 18 trials, 32,557 participants) met the efficacy criteria for further analysis in the second phase by reducing renal endpoints 15 to 27% compared to placebo. There was no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.08) or CV death (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.21) between the treatment and control groups in these trials. There was sufficient statistical power to detect a 9% relative risk reduction in all-cause mortality and a 14% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular mortality.

Conclusions

Firm evidence is lacking that prevention of CKD translates into reductions in mortality. Larger trials with longer follow-up time are needed to determine the benefit of CKD prevention on survival.     

Adjunctive Aripiprazole Versus Placebo for Antipsychotic-Induced Hyperprolactinemia: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective

To compare the safety and efficacy of adjunctive aripiprazole versus placebo for antipsychotic-induced hyperprolactinemia.

Methods

Population: adult patients presenting with antipsychotic-induced hyperprolactinemia diagnosed by prolactin level with or without prolactin-related symptoms. Interventions: adjunctive aripiprazole vs. adjunctive placebo. Outcome measures: adverse events and efficacy of treatment. Studies: randomized controlled trials.

Results

Five randomized controlled trials with a total of 639 patients (326 adjunctive aripiprazole, 313 adjunctive placebo) met the inclusion criteria. Adjunctive aripiprazole was associated with a 79.11% (125/158) prolactin level normalization rate. Meta-analysis of insomnia, headache, sedation, psychiatric disorder, extrapyramidal symptom, dry mouth, and fatigue showed no significant differences in the adjunctive aripiprazole treatment group compared with the placebo group (risk difference (Mantel-Haenszel, random or fixed) −0.05 to 0.04 (95% confidence interval −0.13 to 0.16); I² = 0% to 68%, P = 0.20 to 0.70). However, sedation, insomnia, and headache were more frequent when the adjunctive aripiprazole dose was higher than 15 mg/day. Meta-analysis of the prolactin level normalization indicated adjunctive aripiprazole was superior to placebo (risk difference (Mantel-Haenszel, random) 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.67 to 0.85); I² = 43%, P<0.00001). The subgroup analysis confirmed that the subjects who received adjunctive aripiprazole 5 mg/day showed a degree of prolactin normalization similar to that of all participants. No significant differences between groups in discontinuation and improvements of psychiatric symptoms.

Conclusion

Adjunctive aripiprazole is both safe and effective as a reasonable choice treatment for patients with antipsychotic-induced hyperprolactinemia. The appropriate dose of adjunctive aripiprazole may be 5 mg/day.     

Acetyl-L-Carnitine in the Treatment of Peripheral Neuropathic Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective

Acetyl-L-carnitine (ALC), a constructive molecule in fatty acid metabolism, is an agent potentially effective for treating peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP). Its effect, however, remains uncertain. We aimed to access the efficacy and safety of ALC for the treatment of patients with PNP.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE (1996–2014), EMBase (1974–2014), and CENTRAL (May 2014) up to June 27, 2014 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ALC with placebo or other active medications in diabetic and non-diabetic PNP patients that reported the change of pain using visual analogue scale (VAS). Mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used for pooling continuous data.

Results

Four RCTs comparing ALC with placebo and reporting in three articles (n = 523) were included. Compared with placebo, ALC significantly reduced VAS scores of PNP patients (MD of VAS, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.68-1.72, P <0.00001). In the subgroup analysis, the effect of ALC on VAS was similar in different administration routes (intramuscular-oral sequential subgroup: MD, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.34-2.04, P = 0.006; oral only subgroup: pooled MD, 1.15; 95%CI, 0.33-1.96, P = 0.006), and ALC appeared more effective in diabetic PNP patients than non-diabetic PNP patients (diabetic subgroup: MD, 1.47; 95%CI, 1.06-1.87, P <0.00001; non-diabetic subgroup: MD, 0.71; 95% CI, -0.01-1.43, P = 0.05). No severe adverse events were reported related to ALC. The common adverse events were pain, headache, paraesthesia, hyperesthesia, retching, biliary colic, and gastrointestinal disorders. The rates of total adverse events were similar in ALC and control group.

Conclusion

The current evidence suggests that ALC has a moderate effect in reducing pain measured on VAS in PNP patients with acceptable safety. Larger trials with longer follow-up, however, are warranted to establish the effects.     

The Efficacy and Safety of the Probiotic Bacterium Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 for Infantile Colic: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 for treating infantile colic.

Methods

A systematic literature retrieval was carried out to obtain randomized controlled trials of L. reuteri DSM 17938 for infantile colic. Trials were performed before May 2015 and retrieved from the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, CNKI, WanFang, VIP, and CBM databases. Data extraction and quality evaluation of the trials were performed independently by two investigators. A meta-analysis was performed using STATA version 12.0.

Results

Six randomized controlled trials of 423 infants with colic were included. Of these subjects, 213 were in the L. reuteri group, and 210 were in the placebo group. Lactobacillus reuteri increased colic treatment effectiveness at two weeks (RR = 2.84; 95% CI: 1.24–6.50; p = 0.014) and three weeks (relative risk [RR] = 2.33; 95% CI: 1.38–3.93; P = 0.002) but not at four weeks (RR = 1.41; 95% CI: 0.52–3.82; P = 0.498). Lactobacillus reuteri decreased crying time (min/d) at two weeks (weighted mean difference [WMD] = –42.89; 95% CI: –60.50 to –25.29; P = 0.000) and three weeks (WMD = –45.83; 95% CI: –59.45 to –32.21; P = 0.000). In addition, L. reuteri did not influence infants’ weight, length or head circumference and was not associated with serious adverse events.

Conclusions

Lactobacillus reuteri possibly increased the effectiveness of treatment for infantile colic and decreased crying time at two to three weeks without causing adverse events. However, these protective roles are usurped by gradual physiological improvements. The study is limited by the heterogeneity of the trials and should be considered with caution. Higher quality, multicenter randomized controlled trials with larger samples are needed.     

Prophylactic activated recombinant factor VII in liver resection and liver transplantation: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and Aim

Intraoperative blood loss is a frequent complication of hepatic resection and orthotopic liver transplantation. Recombinant activated coagulation factor VII (rFVIIa) is a coagulation protein that induces hemostasis by directly activating factor X. There is no clear information about the prophylactic value of rFVIIa in hepatobiliary surgery, specifically in liver resection and orthotopic liver transplantation. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of rFVIIa prophylaxis to prevent mortality and bleeding resulting from hepatobiliary surgery.

Methods

Relevant randomized trials were identified by searching The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index. Randomized clinical trials comparing different rFVIIa prophylactic schemas against placebo or no intervention to prevent bleeding in hepatobiliary surgery were included. Adults undergoing liver resection, partial hepatectomy, or orthotopic liver transplantation were included. Dichotomous data were analyzed calculating odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Continuous data were analyzed calculating mean differences (MD) and 95% CIs.

Results

Four randomized controlled trials were included. There were no significant differences between rFVIIa and placebo for mortality (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.35–2.62), red blood cell units (MD 0.32; 95% CI −0.08–0.72) or adverse events (OR 1.55; 95% CI 0.97–2.49).

Conclusions

The available information is limited, precluding the ability to draw conclusions regarding bleeding prophylaxis in hepatobiliary surgery using rFVIIa. Although an apparent lack of effect was observed in all outcomes studied, further research is needed.     

Benzodiazepine hypnotics remain effective for 24 weeks.

Ninety-seven poor sleepers aged 40-68 years took capsules nightly for 32 weeks and made daily subjective ratings. The benzodiazepine hypnotics lormetazepam 2 mg and nitrazepam 5 mg appeared still to improve sleep after 24 weeks of intake when compared with continuous placebo intake. The sustained effectiveness was most evident in a significant shortening of the time taken to fall asleep in patients receiving lormetazepam. After weeks, sleep latency and the quality of sleep were significantly worse than baseline values. The impairment was maximal on the second night after withdrawal of lormetazepam and on the fourth night after withdrawal of nitrazepam. It is concluded that benzodiazepines remain effective for at least 24 weeks but that a period of disturbed sleep may be expected after withdrawal.     

Diagnostic utility of flumazenil in coma with suspected poisoning: a double blind,randomised controlled study.

OBJECTIVE--To assess the diagnostic value and safety of the benzodiazepine antagonist flumazenil in patients with coma of unclear origin with suspected poisoning. DESIGN--Double blind, placebo controlled, randomised study. SETTING--Intensive care unit at a major teaching hospital. PATIENTS--105 Unconscious adults admitted consecutively with suspected drug overdosage during 18 months from a total of 362 cases of poisoning. Exclusion criteria were pregnancy, epilepsy, obvious poisoning with drugs identified unequivocally from information from relatives or others as other than benzodiazepines, and coma score greater than 10 on a scale graded from 4 to 20. Patients were allocated randomly to receive flumazenil (21 men and 32 women) or placebo (25 men and 27 women). INTERVENTIONS--Intravenous injection of flumazenil (10 ml, 0.1 mg/ml) or placebo (10 ml vehicle alone) given double blind over three minutes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Serum and urine concentrations of benzodiazepines, antidepressants, and several other agents; blood gas tensions; standardised evaluation on admission and five minutes after the injection by means of coma scale score and urgent diagnostic or therapeutic interventions indicated according to the history and clinical examination; standardised interview after the injection to try to ascertain further information; and adverse reactions. RESULTS--Benzodiazepines were found in the serum in 36 of the 53 patients in the flumazenil group and in 37 of the 52 who received placebo. The average coma scale score increased significantly after injection in the flumazenil group (6.4 v 12.1, p less than 0.001) but not in the placebo group. In the flumazenil group several interventions were rendered unnecessary by the injection: gastric lavage and urinary catheterisation (19 patients each), intubation (21), artificial ventilation and computed tomography of the brain (three patients each), blood culture and lumbar puncture (one patient each), and electroencephalography (two). In the placebo group the indications for these procedures did not change in any patient after injection. The 95% confidence interval for the difference in reduction of the frequency of indications for gastric lavage after injection between the two groups was 21% to 51%, that for intubation 25% to 55%, and that for urinary catheterisation 21% to 51%. In the flumazenil group 21 patients gave valuable information on their drug ingestion within 10 minutes after injection compared with only one in the placebo group (p less than 0.001). Nine adverse reactions were recorded in the flumazenil group, eight of which were graded as mild and one severe. The safety of the antagonist was acceptable, even though 60% of the patients in the flumazenil group had multiple drug poisoning including benzodiazepine. No epileptic seizures or arrhythmias were recorded. CONCLUSION--Flumazenil is a valuable and safe differential diagnostic tool in unclear cases of multiple drug poisoning.     

Inhaled Long-Acting β2-Agonists Do Not Increase Fatal Cardiovascular Adverse Events in COPD: A Meta-Analysis

Background

The cardiovascular safety of inhaled long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a controversial problem. Certain studies have suggested that inhaled LABAs lead to an increased risk of cardiovascular events in patients with COPD. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the cardiovascular safety of inhaled LABAs in COPD.

Methods

A meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trials for LABA treatment of COPD with at least 3 months of follow-up was performed. The fixed-effects model was used to evaluate the effects of LABAs on fatal cardiovascular adverse events. Adverse events were collected for each trial, and the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for LABA/placebo were estimated.

Results

There were 24 trials included in this meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, inhaled LABAs significantly decreased fatal cardiovascular adverse events in COPD patients (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.86, P = 0.002). In sensitivity analysis, there was still no increased risk of fatal cardiovascular events (RR 0.68, 95%CI 0.46 to 1.01, P = 0.06) after excluding the trial with the largest weight. Among the different types of LABAs, only salmeterol had a significant effect (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.90). In subgroup analyses, inhaled LABAs were able to significantly decrease fatal cardiovascular events in long-term trials (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.87) and in trials with severe COPD patients (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.96).

Conclusion

Inhaled LABAs do not increase the risk of fatal cardiovascular events in COPD patients.     

Effect of folic acid supplementation on cardiovascular outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Folic acid is widely used to lower homocysteine concentrations and prevent adverse cardiovascular outcomes. However, the effect of folic acid on cardiovascular events is not clear at the present time. We carried out a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of folic acid supplementation on cardiovascular outcomes.

Methodology and Principal Findings

We systematically searched Medline, EmBase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, reference lists of articles, and proceedings of major meetings for relevant literature. We included randomized placebo-controlled trials that reported on the effects of folic acid on cardiovascular events compared to placebo. Of 1594 identified studies, we included 16 trials reporting data on 44841 patients. These studies reported 8238 major cardiovascular events, 2001 strokes, 2917 myocardial infarctions, and 6314 deaths. Folic acid supplementation as compared to placebo had no effect on major cardiovascular events (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93–1.04), stroke (RR, 0.89; 95% CI,0.78–1.01), myocardial infarction (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.93–1.07), or deaths from any cause (RR, 1.00;95% CI, 0.96–1.05). Moreover, folic acid as compared to placebo also had no effect on the following secondary outcomes: risk of revascularization (RR, 1.05; 95%CI, 0.95–1.16), acute coronary syndrome (RR, 1.06; 95%CI, 0.97–1.15), cancer (RR, 1.08; 95%CI, 0.98–1.21), vascular death (RR, 0.94; 95%CI,0.88–1.02), or non-vascular death (RR, 1.06; 95%CI, 0.97–1.15).

Conclusion/Significance

Folic acid supplementation does not effect on the incidence of major cardiovascular events, stroke, myocardial infarction or all cause mortality.     

Dacarbazine Combined Targeted Therapy versus Dacarbazine Alone in Patients with Malignant Melanoma: A Meta-Analysis

Background

Malignant melanoma is the most aggressive and deadly form of skin cancer. Dacarbazine (DTIC) has been the approved first-line treatment for metastatic melanoma in routine clinical practice. However, response rates with single-agent DTIC are low. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of DTIC with or without placebo and DTIC-based combination therapies in patients with advanced metastatic melanoma.

Methods

We searched from electronic databases such as The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EBSCO, EMBASE, Ovid, CNKI, and CBMDisc from 2003 to 2013. The primary outcome measures were overall response and 1-year survival, and the secondary outcome measurements were adverse events.

Results

Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 2,481 patients were included in the meta-analysis. DTIC-based combination therapies was superior to DTIC alone in overall response (combined risk ratio [RR]  = 1.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.27–2.01) and 1-year survival (combined RR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.14–1.39). Patients with DTIC-based combination therapies had higher incidence of adverse events including nausea (combined RR = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.10–1.36), vomiting (combined RR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.41–2.12) and neutropenia (combined RR = 1.75, 95% CI: 1.42–2.16) compared to the group for DTIC alone.

Conclusion

These data suggested that DTIC-based combination therapies could moderately improve the overall response and the 1-year survival but increased the incidence of adverse events. Further large-scale, high-quality, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials are needed to confirm this conclusion.     

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.     

The Dose-Dependent Effect of Nesiritide on Renal Function in Patients with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Conflicting renal effects of nesiritide have been reported in patients with acute decompensated heart failure. To answer this controversy, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the influence of nesiritide on renal function in patients with acute decompensated heart failure.

Methods

Articles were obtained from PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library and reference review. Randomized controlled studies that investigated the effects of continuous infusion of nesiritide on renal function in adult patients with acute decompensated heart failure were included and analyzed. Fixed-effect model was used to estimate relative risk (RR) and weight mean difference (WMD). The quality assessment of each study, subgroup, sensitivity, and publication bias analyses were performed.

Results

Fifteen randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion. Most of included studies had relatively high quality and no publication bias was found. Overall, compared to control therapies, nesiritide might increase the risk of worsening renal function in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01–1.15, P = 0.023). In subgroup analysis, high-dose nesiritide strongly associated with renal dysfunction (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.19-2.00, P = 0.001), but no statistical differences were observed in standard-dose (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.98-1.12, P = 0.213), low-dose groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.74-1.37, P = 0.968) and same results were identified in the subgroup analysis of placebo controlled trials. Peak mean change of serum creatinine from baseline was no significant difference (WMD -2.54, 95% CI -5.76-0.67, P = 0.121).

Conclusions

In our meta-analysis, nesiritide may have a dose-dependent effect on renal function in patients with acute decompensated heart failure. High-dose nesiritide is likely to increase the risk of worsening renal function, but standard-dose and low-dose nesiritide probably have no impact on renal function. These findings could be helpful to optimize the use of nesiritide in clinical practice.     

Memantine Monotherapy for Alzheimer’s Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

We performed an updated meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials testing memantine monotherapy for patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

Methods

The meta-analysis included randomized controlled trials of memantine monotherapy for AD, omitting those in which patients were also administered a cholinesterase inhibitor. Cognitive function, activities of daily living, behavioral disturbances, global function, stage of dementia, drug discontinuation rate, and individual side effects were compared between memantine monotherapy and placebo groups. The primary outcomes were cognitive function and behavioral disturbances; the others were secondary outcomes.

Results

Nine studies including 2433 patients that met the study’s inclusion criteria were identified. Memantine monotherapy significantly improved cognitive function [standardized mean difference (SMD)=−0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI)=−0.39 to −0.14, p=0.0001], behavioral disturbances (SMD=−0.12, 95% CI=−0.22 to −0.01, p=0.03), activities of daily living (SMD=−0.09, 95% CI=−0.19 to −0.00, p=0.05), global function assessment (SMD=−0.18, 95% CI=−0.27 to −0.09, p=0.0001), and stage of dementia (SMD=−0.23, 95% CI=−0.33 to −0.12, p=0.0001) scores. Memantine was superior to placebo in terms of discontinuation because of inefficacy [risk ratio (RR)=0.36, 95% CI=0.17¬ to 0.74, p=0.006, number needed to harm (NNH)=non significant]. Moreover, memantine was associated with less agitation compared with placebo (RR=0.68, 95% CI=0.49 to 0.94, p=0.02, NNH=non significant). There were no significant differences in the rate of discontinuation because of all causes, all adverse events, and individual side effects other than agitation between the memantine monotherapy and placebo groups.

Conclusions

Memantine monotherapy improved cognition, behavior, activities of daily living, global function, and stage of dementia and was well-tolerated by AD patients. However, the effect size in terms of efficacy outcomes was small and thus there is limited evidence of clinical benefit.