1,721,163 research outputs found
Combining Pharmacological and Nonpharmacological Interventions in Network Meta-analysis in Psychiatry
Full text linkAssociation of immunotherapies with outcomes in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis
No full textCLINICAL QUESTION: What immunotherapies for multiple sclerosis are associated with the greatest benefit and highest risk of discontinuation due to adverse events in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis? BOTTOM LINE: Alemtuzumab, natalizumab, and fingolimod were associated with the greatest benefit with regard to relapse prevention. Their association with prevention of disability worsening was unclear. Fingolimod was associated with a high risk of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events
Rituximab for people with multiple sclerosis
No full textBackground: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is the most common neurological cause of disability in young adults. Off-label rituximab for MS is used in most countries surveyed by the International Federation of MS, including high-income countries where on-label disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) are available. This updates the 2021 version of the review. Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of rituximab as 'first choice' and 'switching' treatment for adults with any form of MS. Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and three trials registers on 31 December 2023, together with reference checking and contacting study authors to identify unpublished studies. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) comparing rituximab with placebo or another DMT for adults with any form of MS. Data collection and analysis: We followed standard Cochrane methods. We used RoB 1 to assess risk of bias in RCTs and ROBINS-I in NRSIs. We assessed the certainty of evidence for critical and important prioritised outcomes using GRADE: disability worsening, relapse, serious adverse events (SAEs), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), common infections, cancer, and mortality. We conducted separate analyses for rituximab as 'first choice' or as 'switching' treatment, relapsing or progressive MS, comparison with placebo or another DMT, and RCTs or NRSIs. Main results: In this update, the number of study participants increased from 16,429 (15 studies) to 37,443 (28 studies; 13 new studies: 1 RCT and 12 NRSIs). The studies were conducted worldwide; most originated from high-income countries (25 studies). Public institutions funded 22 (79%) of the studies. Most studies investigated the effects of rituximab on people with relapsing MS (19 studies; 27,500 (73%) participants). We identified 12 ongoing studies. Rituximab as 'first choice' for active relapsing MS. None of the included studies compared rituximab to placebo. One RCT compared rituximab to dimethyl fumarate, with 24 months' follow-up. Rituximab may reduce the recurrence of relapse (odds ratio (OR) 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.57; 195 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain on disability worsening and SAEs. Rituximab may result in little to no difference in upper respiratory tract infections (rate ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.34; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain for urinary tract, skin, and viral infections. HRQoL, cancer, and mortality were not reported. One NRSI compared rituximab to other DMTs, with 24 months' follow-up. Disability worsening was not reported. Compared with interferon beta or glatiramer acetate, rituximab likely delays relapse (hazard ratio (HR) 0.14, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.39; 1 study, 335 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared with dimethyl fumarate and natalizumab, rituximab may delay relapse (dimethyl fumarate: HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.00; 1 study, 206 participants; low-certainty evidence; natalizumab: HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.00; 1 study, 170 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence for relapse is very uncertain when comparing rituximab to fingolimod. The effect on SAEs is uncertain due to very few events in all the comparison groups. No deaths were reported. HRQoL, common infections, and cancer were not reported. Rituximab as 'first choice' for primary progressive MS. One RCT compared rituximab to placebo, with 24 months' follow-up. Rituximab likely results in little or no difference in disability worsening (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.11; 439 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain on relapse, SAEs, common infections, cancer, and mortality. HRQoL was not reported. None of the included studies compared rituximab as 'first choice' treatment to other DMTs for primary or secondary progressive MS. Rituximab as 'switching' treatment for relapsing MS. One small RCT compared rituximab to placebo, with 12 months' follow-up. Disability worsening was not reported. Rituximab may reduce recurrence of relapses (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.93; 1 study, 104 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain regarding SAEs, common infections, cancer, and mortality. HRQoL was not reported. Twelve NRSIs compared rituximab to other DMTs, with 24 months' follow-up. The evidence on disability worsening is very uncertain in comparison with interferons or glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, alemtuzumab, and ocrelizumab. Rituximab likely delays time to relapse in comparison with interferons or glatiramer acetate (HR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; 1 study, 1383 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fingolimod (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.32; 1 study, 256 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may result in little or no difference compared with natalizumab (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.10; 3 studies, 1922 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain on relapse in comparison with alemtuzumab. There is uncertainty regarding SAEs when comparing rituximab to natalizumab and fingolimod. Rituximab likely increases serious common infections when compared with interferon beta or glatiramer acetate (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.62; 1 study, 5477 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and natalizumab (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.32; 2 studies, 5001 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence for common infections is very uncertain when comparing rituximab to fingolimod and ocrelizumab. Rituximab may slightly reduce the risk of cancer compared with natalizumab (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.99; 2 studies, 6202 participants; low-certainty evidence), whereas the evidence is very uncertain in comparison with fingolimod. The effect of rituximab on mortality is very uncertain due to very few events in all the comparison groups. HRQoL was not reported. Authors' conclusions: For preventing relapses in relapsing MS, rituximab as 'first choice' and 'switching' treatment compares favourably with a wide range of approved DMTs. The protective effect of rituximab against disability worsening is uncertain. There is limited information to determine the effect of rituximab on primary progressive MS. There is limited evidence for long-term adverse events of rituximab in people with MS. Evidence for serious adverse events, cancer, and mortality was of very low certainty due to few events. There is an increased risk of serious (hospital-treated) infections with rituximab compared with other DMTs, although the absolute risk is low. High-quality (prospectively registered) NRSIs should be conducted to draw more reliable conclusions about the potential benefits and harms of rituximab in people with MS
Rituximab for people with multiple sclerosis
Full text linkObjectives: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:. The main objective is to assess the benefits and harms of rituximab compared to placebo or another DMT for people with multiple sclerosis. Specific comparisons include:. rituximab compared with placebo or other DMTs as first choice treatment for relapsing forms of MS; rituximab when switching from another DMT compared with placebo or other DMTs for relapsing forms of MS; rituximab compared with placebo or other DMTs as first choice treatment for progressive forms of MS; and rituximab when switching from another DMT compared with placebo or other DMTs for progressive forms of MS
Editorial: Second-Generation Antipsychotics for Bipolar Depression in Youths: The Best Evidence Synthesis Is a Strong Call for Further Evidence
No full textAntihypertensive Drugs for Secondary Prevention after Ischemic Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
No full textBackground and Purpose: Approximately 30% of ischemic strokes occur after a previous stroke or transient ischemic attack. Arterial hypertension is one of the best established risk factors for first and recurrent stroke, both ischemic and hemorrhagic. Guidelines for the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke support the use of blood pressure (BP)-lowering drugs in most patients. However, the evidence for these recommendations comes from meta-analyses that included both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke patients, whereas these 2 conditions differ quantitatively in several aspects. With this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed at summarizing the current evidence on BP-lowering drugs for secondary prevention in patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to January 31, 2020. We included randomized controlled trials comparing any specific BP-lowering drug, as monotherapy or combination, with either a control or another BP-lowering drug. Results: Eight studies that enrolled 33 774 patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack were included in the meta-analysis. Mean follow-up was 25 months (range, 3-48). Moderate-quality evidence indicated that a subsequent stroke occurred in 7.9% (ischemic in 7.4% or hemorrhagic in 0.6%) of patients taking any type of BP-lowering drug compared with 9.7% of patients taking placebo (odds ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.66-0.94]; absolute risk difference, -1.9% [95% CI, -3.1% to -0.5%]). Moderate-quality evidence indicated that mortality occurred similarly in patients taking any type of BP-lowering treatment compared with placebo, with an absolute risk of 7.3% and 7.9%, respectively (odds ratio, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.92-1.10]; absolute risk difference, 0.1% [95% CI, -0.6% to 0.7%]). Conclusions: The use of BP-lowering drugs in patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack is associated with a 1.9% risk reduction of stroke but does not affect the all-cause mortality risk
Network Meta-Analysis.
No full textThere are often multiple potential interventions to treat a disease; therefore, we need a method for simultaneously comparing and ranking all of these available interventions. In contrast to pairwise meta-analysis, which allows for the comparison of one intervention to another based on head-to-head data from randomized trials, network meta-analysis (NMA) facilitates simultaneous comparison of the efficacy or safety of multiple interventions that may not have been directly compared in a randomized trial. NMAs help researchers study important and previously unanswerable questions, which have contributed to a rapid rise in the number of NMA publications in the biomedical literature. However, the conduct and interpretation of NMAs are more complex than pairwise meta-analyses: there are additional NMA model assumptions (i.e., network connectivity, homogeneity, transitivity, and consistency) and outputs (e.g., network plots and surface under the cumulative ranking curves [SUCRAs]). In this chapter, we will: (1) explore similarities and differences between pairwise and network meta-analysis; (2) explain the differences between direct, indirect, and mixed treatment comparisons; (3) describe how treatment effects are derived from NMA models; (4) discuss key criteria predicating completion of NMA; (5) interpret NMA outputs; (6) discuss areas of ongoing methodological research in NMA; (7) outline an approach to conducting a systematic review and NMA; (8) describe common problems that researchers encounter when conducting NMAs and potential solutions; and (9) outline an approach to critically appraising a systematic review and NMA
Rituximab for people with multiple sclerosis.
Full text linkBACKGROUND
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is the most common neurological cause of disability in young adults. Off-label rituximab for MS is used in most countries surveyed by the International Federation of MS, including high-income countries where on-label disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) are available. OBJECTIVES: To assess beneficial and adverse effects of rituximab as 'first choice' and as 'switching' for adults with MS.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and trial registers for completed and ongoing studies on 31 January 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) comparing rituximab with placebo or another DMT for adults with MS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We used the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. We rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE for: disability worsening, relapse, serious adverse events (SAEs), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), common infections, cancer, and mortality. We conducted separate analyses for rituximab as 'first choice' or as 'switching', relapsing or progressive MS, comparison versus placebo or another DMT, and RCTs or NRSIs.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 studies (5 RCTs, 10 NRSIs) with 16,429 participants of whom 13,143 were relapsing MS and 3286 progressive MS. The studies were one to two years long and compared rituximab as 'first choice' with placebo (1 RCT) or other DMTs (1 NRSI), rituximab as 'switching' against placebo (2 RCTs) or other DMTs (2 RCTs, 9 NRSIs). The studies were conducted worldwide; most originated from high-income countries, six from the Swedish MS register. Pharmaceutical companies funded two studies. We identified 14 ongoing studies. Rituximab as 'first choice' for relapsing MS Rituximab versus placebo: no studies met eligibility criteria for this comparison. Rituximab versus other DMTs: one NRSI compared rituximab with interferon beta or glatiramer acetate, dimethyl fumarate, natalizumab, or fingolimod in active relapsing MS at 24 months' follow-up. Rituximab likely results in a large reduction in relapses compared with interferon beta or glatiramer acetate (hazard ratio (HR) 0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.39; 335 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Rituximab may reduce relapses compared with dimethyl fumarate (HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.00; 206 participants; low-certainty evidence) and natalizumab (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.00; 170 participants; low-certainty evidence). It may make little or no difference on relapse compared with fingolimod (HR 0.26, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.69; 137 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported no deaths over 24 months. The study did not measure disability worsening, SAEs, HRQoL, and common infections. Rituximab as 'first choice' for progressive MS One RCT compared rituximab with placebo in primary progressive MS at 24 months' follow-up. Rituximab likely results in little to no difference in the number of participants who have disability worsening compared with placebo (odds ratio (OR) 0.71, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.11; 439 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Rituximab may result in little to no difference in recurrence of relapses (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.99; 439 participants; low-certainty evidence), SAEs (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.20; 439 participants; low-certainty evidence), common infections (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.73; 439 participants; low-certainty evidence), cancer (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.59; 439 participants; low-certainty evidence), and mortality (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.77; 439 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure HRQoL. Rituximab versus other DMTs: no studies met eligibility criteria for this comparison. Rituximab as 'switching' for relapsing MS One RCT compared rituximab with placebo in relapsing MS at 12 months' follow-up. Rituximab may decrease recurrence of relapses compared with placebo (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.93; 104 participants; low-certainty evidence). The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of rituximab relative to placebo on SAEs (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.92; 104 participants; very low-certainty evidence), common infections (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.37 to 2.24; 104 participants; very low-certainty evidence), cancer (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.06 to 39.15; 104 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and mortality (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.06 to 39.15; 104 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure disability worsening and HRQoL. Five NRSIs compared rituximab with other DMTs in relapsing MS at 24 months' follow-up. The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of rituximab relative to interferon beta or glatiramer acetate on disability worsening (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.42; 1 NRSI, 853 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Rituximab likely results in a large reduction in relapses compared with interferon beta or glatiramer acetate (HR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; 1 NRSI, 1383 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and fingolimod (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.32; 1 NRSI, 256 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of rituximab relative to natalizumab on relapses (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.2 to 5.0; 1 NRSI, 153 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Rituximab likely increases slightly common infections compared with interferon beta or glatiramer acetate (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.62; 1 NRSI, 5477 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and compared with natalizumab (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.32; 2 NRSIs, 5001 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Rituximab may increase slightly common infections compared with fingolimod (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.77; 3 NRSIs, 5187 participants; low-certainty evidence). It may make little or no difference compared with ocrelizumab (OR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.40; 1 NRSI, 472 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of rituximab on mortality compared with fingolimod (OR 5.59, 95% CI 0.22 to 139.89; 1 NRSI, 136 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and natalizumab (OR 6.66, 95% CI 0.27 to 166.58; 1 NRSI, 153 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The included studies did not measure SAEs, HRQoL, and cancer.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For preventing relapses in relapsing MS, rituximab as 'first choice' and as 'switching' may compare favourably with a wide range of approved DMTs. A protective effect of rituximab against disability worsening is uncertain. There is limited information to determine the effect of rituximab for progressive MS. The evidence is uncertain about the effect of rituximab on SAEs. They are relatively rare in people with MS, thus difficult to study, and they were not well reported in studies. There is an increased risk of common infections with rituximab, but absolute risk is small. Rituximab is widely used as off-label treatment in people with MS; however, randomised evidence is weak. In the absence of randomised evidence, remaining uncertainties on beneficial and adverse effects of rituximab for MS might be clarified by making real-world data available
Systematic review with network meta-analysis: Comparative efficacy and safety of budesonide and mesalazine (mesalamine) for Crohn's disease
No full textBackground Budesonide and mesalazine (mesalamine) are commonly used in the medical management of patients with mild to moderate Crohn's disease. Aim To assess their comparative efficacy and harm using the methodology of network meta-analysis. Methods A comprehensive search of Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov, through October 2014, was performed to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited adult patients with active or quiescent Crohn's disease, and compared budesonide or mesalazine with placebo, or against each other, or different dosing strategies of one drug. Results Twenty-five RCTs were combined using Bayesian network meta-analysis. Budesonide 9 mg/day, or at higher doses (15 or 18 mg/day), was shown superior to placebo for induction of remission [odds ratio (OR), 2.93; 95% credible interval (CrI), 1.52-5.39, and OR, 3.28; CrI, 1.46-7.55 respectively] and ranks at the top of the hierarchy of the competing treatments. For maintenance of remission, budesonide 6 mg/day demonstrated superiority over placebo (OR, 1.69; CrI, 1.05-2.75), being also at the best ranking position among all compared treatment strategies. No other comparisons (i.e. different doses of mesalazine vs. placebo or budesonide, for induction or maintenance of remission) reached significance. The occurrence of withdrawals due to adverse events was not shown different between budesonide, mesalazine and placebo, in both the induction and maintenance phases. Conclusions Budesonide, at the doses of 9 mg/day, or higher, for induction of remission in active mild or moderate Crohn's disease, and at 6 mg/day for maintenance of remission, appears to be the best treatment choice
Second-line treatments in benzodiazepine-resistant convulsive status epilepticus: An updated network meta-analysis including the ESET Trial – What did change?
No full text- …
