Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy of Lamivudine and emtricitabine: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Lamivudine and emtricitabine are considered equivalent by several guidelines, but evidence of comparable efficacy is conflicting.

Methods

We searched two databases up to June 30 2013 to identify randomized and quasi-randomized trials in which lamivudine and emtricitabine were used as part of combination antiretroviral therapy for treatment-naïve or experienced HIV-positive adult patients. We only included trials where partner drugs in the regimen were identical or could be considered to be comparable. We allowed for comparisons between tenofovir and abacavir provided the study population did not begin treatment with a viral load >100,000 copies/ml.

Results

12 trials contributed 15 different randomized comparisons providing data on 2251 patients receiving lamivudine and 2662 patients receiving emtricitabine. Treatment success was not significantly different in any of the 12 trials. In the three trials that directly compared lamivudine and emtricitabine, the relative risk for achieving treatment success was non-significant (RR 1.03 95%CI 0.96-1.10). For all trials combined, the pooled relative risk for treatment success was not significantly different (RR 1.00, 95%CI 0.97-1.02). No heterogeneity was observed (I (2) = 0). Similarly, there was no difference in the pooled relative risk for treatment failure (RR 1.08, 95%CI 0.94-1.22, I (2) = 3.4%).

Conclusions

The findings of this systematic review suggest that lamivudine and emtricitabine are clinically equivalent.

SUBMITTER: Ford N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3823593 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative efficacy of Lamivudine and emtricitabine: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Ford Nathan N Shubber Zara Z Hill Andrew A Vitoria Marco M Doherty Meg M Mills Edward J EJ Gray Andy A

PloS one 20131111 11

<h4>Introduction</h4>Lamivudine and emtricitabine are considered equivalent by several guidelines, but evidence of comparable efficacy is conflicting.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched two databases up to June 30 2013 to identify randomized and quasi-randomized trials in which lamivudine and emtricitabine were used as part of combination antiretroviral therapy for treatment-naïve or experienced HIV-positive adult patients. We only included trials where partner drugs in the regimen were identical or cou ...[more]

PMID: 24244586

Similar Datasets

Project description:Poor mental health places a burden on individuals and populations. Resilient persons are able to adapt to life's challenges and maintain high quality of life and function. Finding effective strategies to bolster resilience in individuals and populations is of interest to many stakeholders.To synthesize the evidence for resiliency training programs in improving mental health and capacity in 1) diverse adult populations and 2) persons with chronic diseases.Electronic databases, clinical trial registries, and bibliographies. We also contacted study authors and field experts.Randomized trials assessing the efficacy of any program intended to enhance resilience in adults and published after 1990. No restrictions were made based on outcome measured or comparator used.Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to extract study characteristics and data. These were confirmed with authors. We conducted a random effects meta-analysis on available data and tested for interaction in planned subgroups.The standardized mean difference (SMD) effect of resiliency training programs on 1) resilience/hardiness, 2) quality of life/well-being, 3) self-efficacy/activation, 4) depression, 5) stress, and 6) anxiety.We found 25 small trials at moderate to high risk of bias. Interventions varied in format and theoretical approach. Random effects meta-analysis showed a moderate effect of generalized stress-directed programs on enhancing resilience [pooled SMD 0.37 (95% CI 0.18, 0.57) p?=?.0002; I2?=?41%] within 3 months of follow up. Improvement in other outcomes was favorable to the interventions and reached statistical significance after removing two studies at high risk of bias. Trauma-induced stress-directed programs significantly improved stress [-0.53 (-1.04, -0.03) p?=?.03; I2?=?73%] and depression [-0.51 (-0.92, -0.10) p?=?.04; I2?=?61%].We found evidence warranting low confidence that resiliency training programs have a small to moderate effect at improving resilience and other mental health outcomes. Further study is needed to better define the resilience construct and to design interventions specific to it.PROSPERO #CRD42014007185.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess whether in adults with dyslipidemia, statins reduce cardiovascular events, mortality, and adverse effects when compared to fibrates.MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis of head-to-head randomized trials of statin and fibrate monotherapy. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, WHO International Controlled Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched through October 30, 2019. Trials that had a follow-up of at least 28 days, and reported mortality or a cardiovascular outcome of interest were eligible for inclusion. Efficacy outcomes were cardiovascular mortality and major cardiovascular events. Safety outcomes included myalgia, serious adverse effects, elevated serum creatinine, and elevated serum alanine aminotransferase. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic.ResultsWe included 19 eligible trials that directly compared statin and fibrate monotherapy and reported mortality or a cardiovascular event. Studies had a limited duration of follow-up (range 10 weeks to 2 years). We did not find any evidence of a difference between statins and fibrates for cardiovascular mortality (OR 2.35, 95% CI 0.94-5.86, I2 = 0%; ten studies, n = 2657; low certainty), major cardiovascular events (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.80-1.65, I2 = 13%; 19 studies, n = 7619; low certainty), and myalgia (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.95-1.83, I2 = 0%; ten studies, n = 6090; low certainty). Statins had less serious adverse effects (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.36-0.91, I2 = 0%; nine studies, n = 3749; moderate certainty), less elevations in serum creatinine (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.08-0.36, I2 = 0%; six studies, n = 2553; high certainty), and more elevations in alanine aminotransferase (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.03-1.99, I2 = 44%; seven studies, n = 5225; low certainty).ConclusionsThe eligible randomized trials of statins versus fibrates were designed to assess short-term lipid outcomes, making it difficult to have certainty about the direct comparative effect on cardiovascular outcomes and mortality. With the exception of myalgia, use of a statin appeared to have a lower incidence of adverse effects compared to use of a fibrate.

Project description:Background: Severe pneumonia (SP) has a high mortality rate and is responsible for significant healthcare costs. Chinese herbal injections (CHIs) have been widely used in China as a novel and promising treatment option for SP. Therefore, this study assessed and ranked the effectiveness of CHIs to provide more sights for the selection of SP treatment. Method: Seven databases were searched from their inception up to April 1, 2021. The methodological quality of included study was evaluated by the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Then, a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed by OpenBUGS 3.2.3 and STATA 14.0 software. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probability values were applied to rank the examined treatments. A clustering analysis was utilized to compare the effect of CHIs between two different outcomes. Results: A total of 64 eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 5,904 participants were identified for this analysis. Six CHIs including Xuebijing injection (XBJ), Tanreqing injection (TRQ), Reduning injection (RDN), Xiyanping injection (XYP), Shenfu injection (SF), and Shenmai injection (SM) were included. The results of the NMA showed that XBJ [odds ratio (OR) = 0.24, 95% credible interval (CI): 0.19, 0.30], TRQ (OR = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.12, 0.37), RDN (OR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.94), and SM (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.08, 0.63) combined with conventional Western medicine (WM) improved the clinical effective rate more significantly than WM alone. Based on SUCRA values, TRQ + WM (SUCRA: 66.4%) ranked the highest in improving the clinical effective rate, second in four different outcomes, and third in only one. According to the cluster analysis, TRQ + WM exerted a positive effect on improving the efficacy of SP. As for safety, less than 30% (18 RCTs) of the included studies reported adverse drug reactions/adverse drug events (ADRs/ADEs), including 14 RCTs of XBJ, 3 RCTs of TRQ, and 1 RCT of RDN. Conclusion: In conclusion, the study found that the CHIs as co-adjuvant therapy could be beneficial for patients with SP. TRQ + WM showed an outstanding improvement in patients with SP considering both the clinical effective rate and other outcomes. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42021244587].

Project description:BackgroundThere is some evidence that corticosteroids may have a beneficial effect in hand osteoarthritis. We examined the efficacy of corticosteroids on symptoms and structural outcomes in hand osteoarthritis.MethodsOvid MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to October 2021 for randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of corticosteroids in hand osteoarthritis. Two authors independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the RoB 2 tool. Standardized mean difference (SMD) or mean difference (MD) was calculated, and random-effects meta-analyses were performed.ResultsOf 13 included trials, 3 examined oral corticosteroids and clinical outcomes in any hand joints, 9 examined intra-articular injection of corticosteroids and clinical outcomes at the first carpometacarpal joint and one in the interphalangeal joints. In meta-analysis, oral corticosteroids reduced pain (SMD -0.53, 95% CI -0.79 to -0.28) and improved stiffness (MD -5.03, 95% CI -9.91 to -0.15; Australian Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index stiffness subscale) and function (SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.12) at 4-6 weeks. However, there was no significant persistent effect on pain and function at 3 months which was 6-8 weeks after study medication was stopped. There was no significant effect of intra-articular corticosteroids on pain or function at 4-6 weeks or over 3-12 months in first carpometacarpal osteoarthritis. Two trials evaluated joint structure at 4-6 weeks: one study showed oral corticosteroids reduced synovial thickening, neither showed an effect on synovitis.ConclusionsThere was low-certainty evidence for a medium effect of oral corticosteroids on pain relief and stiffness improvement and small-to-medium effect on functional improvement at 4-6 weeks, with no significant effect for intra-articular corticosteroids. Corticosteroids had no significant effect on any outcomes over longer term (3-12 months) off treatment. No trials examined the effect of corticosteroids on disease progression. The role of corticosteroids in hand osteoarthritis is limited.

Project description:Vancomycin and teicoplanin are the glycopeptides currently in use for the treatment of infections caused by invasive beta-lactam-resistant gram-positive organisms. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that have compared vancomycin and teicoplanin administered systemically for the treatment of suspected or proven infections. A comprehensive search of trials without year, language, or publication status restrictions was performed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled by using the fixed-effect model (RRs of >1 favor vancomycin). Twenty-four trials were included. All-cause mortality was similar overall (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.21), and there was no significant heterogeneity. In trials that used adequate allocation concealment, the results favored teicoplanin (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.06), while in trials with unknown methods or inadequate concealment, the results favored vancomycin (RR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.27 to 10.30). The latter trials might have recruited more severely ill patients. No other variable affected the RRs for mortality, including the assessment of glycopeptides administered empirically or for proven infections, neutropenia, the participant's age, and drug dosing. There were no significant differences between teicoplanin and vancomycin with regard to clinical failure (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.05), microbiological failure (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.65), and other efficacy outcomes. Lower RRs (in favor of teicoplanin) for clinical failure were observed with a lower risk of bias and when treatment was initiated for infections caused by gram-positive organisms rather than empirically. Total adverse events (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.74), nephrotoxicity (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.61), and red man syndrome were significantly less frequent with teicoplanin. Teicoplanin is not inferior to vancomycin with regard to efficacy and is associated with a lower adverse event rate than vancomycin.

Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy of Lamivudine and emtricitabine: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Comparative efficacy of Lamivudine and emtricitabine: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets