Dataset Information

Comparative Effectiveness of Pharmacologic Interventions for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to examine comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacologic interventions for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). METHODS:MEDLINE, the Cochrane Register, EMBASE, CINAHL, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched (January 1, 1990 to March 3, 2016). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying the approved pharmacologic agents endothelin receptor antagonists (ERA), phosphodiesterase inhibitors (PDE5i), the oral/inhaled (PO/INH) and IV/subcutaneous (SC) prostanoids, and riociguat and selexipag, alone or in combination, for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and reporting at least one efficacy outcome were selected. RESULTS:Thirty-one RCTs with 6,565 patients were selected. In network meta-analysis, when compared with a median placebo rate of 14.5%, clinical worsening was estimated at 2.8% with riociguat (risk ratio [RR], 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05-0.76); at 3.9% with ERA + PDE5i (RR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.14-0.52), and at 5.7% with PDE5i (RR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.24-0.62). For improvement in functional status, when compared with 16.2% in the placebo group, improvement in at least one New York Heart Association/World Health Organization (NYHA/WHO) functional class was estimated at 81.8% with IV/SC prostanoids (RR, 5.06; 95% CI, 2.3211.04), at 28.3% with ERA + PDE5i (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.05-2.92), and at 25.2% with ERA (RR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.22-2.00). Differences in mortality were not significant. Adverse events leading to discontinuation of therapy were highest with the PO/INH prostanoids (RR, 2.92; 95% CI, 1.68-5.06) and selexipag (RR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.04-3.88) compared with placebo. CONCLUSIONS:Currently approved pharmacologic agents have varying effects on morbidity and functional status in patients with PAH. Future comparative effectiveness trials are warranted with a focus on a patient-centered approach to therapy. REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42016036803.

SUBMITTER: Jain S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5310124 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative Effectiveness of Pharmacologic Interventions for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Jain Snigdha S Khera Rohan R Girotra Saket S Badesch David D Wang Zhen Z Murad Mohammad Hassan MH Blevins Amy A Schmidt Gregory A GA Singh Siddharth S Gerke Alicia K AK

Chest 20160909 1

<h4>Background</h4>We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to examine comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacologic interventions for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH).<h4>Methods</h4>MEDLINE, the Cochrane Register, EMBASE, CINAHL, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched (January 1, 1990 to March 3, 2016). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying the approved pharmacologic agents endothelin receptor antagonists (ERA), phosphodiesterase inhibitors (PDE5i), the ora ...[more]

PMID: 27615023

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Several pharmacological interventions are now under investigation for the treatment of Covid-19, and the evidence is evolving rapidly. Our aim is to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of these drugs. Methods and Findings: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We included 96 RCTs, comprising of 34,501 patients. The network meta-analysis showed in terms of all-cause mortality, when compared to SC or placebo, only corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate (RR 0.90, 95%CI 0.83, 0.97; moderate certainty of evidence). Corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate also when compared to hydroxychloroquine (RR 0.83, 95%CI 0.74, 0.94; moderate certainty of evidence). Remdesivir proved to be better in terms of SAEs when compared to SC or placebo (RR 0.75, 95%CI 0.63, 0.89; high certainty of evidence) and plasma (RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.34, 0.94; high certainty of evidence). The combination of lopinavir and ritonavir proved to reduce SAEs when compared to plasma (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.25, 0.95; high certainty of evidence). Most of the RCTs were at unclear risk of bias (42 of 96), one third were at high risk of bias (34 of 96) and 20 were at low risk of bias. Certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low. Conclusion: At present, corticosteroids reduced all-cause mortality in patients with Covid-19, with a moderate certainty of evidence. Remdesivir appeared to be a safer option than SC or placebo, while plasma was associated with safety concerns. These preliminary evidence-based observations should guide clinical practice until more data are made public.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious meta-analyses of treatments for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) have not shown mortality benefit from any individual class of medication.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception through November 2009 for randomized trials that evaluated any pharmacotherapy in the treatment of PAH. Reference lists from included articles and recent review articles were also searched. Analysis included randomized placebo controlled trials of at least eight weeks duration and studies comparing intravenous medication to an unblinded control group.Results1541 unique studies were identified and twenty-four articles with 3758 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Studies were reviewed and data extracted regarding study characteristics and outcomes. Data was pooled for three classes of medication: prostanoids, endothelin-receptor antagonists (ERAs), and phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors. Pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for mortality, 6-minute walk distance, dyspnea scores, hemodynamic parameters, and adverse effects. Mortality in the control arms was a combined 4.2% over the mean study length of 14.9 weeks. There was significant mortality benefit with prostanoid treatment (RR 0.49, CI 0.29 to 0.82), particularly comparing intravenous agents to control (RR 0.30, CI 0.14 to 0.63). Mortality benefit was not observed for ERAs (RR 0.58, CI 0.21 to 1.60) or PDE5 inhibitors (RR 0.30, CI 0.08 to 1.08). All three classes of medication improved other clinical and hemodynamic endpoints. Adverse effects that were increased in treatment arms include jaw pain, diarrhea, peripheral edema, headache, and nausea in prostanoids; and visual disturbance, dyspepsia, flushing, headache, and limb pain in PDE5 inhibitors. No adverse events were significantly associated with ERA treatment.ConclusionsTreatment of PAH with prostanoids reduces mortality and improves multiple other clinical and hemodynamic outcomes. ERAs and PDE5 inhibitors improve clinical and hemodynamic outcomes, but have no proven effect on mortality. The long-term effects of all PAH treatment requires further study.

Project description:Background & aimsThere are several drugs that might decrease the risk of relapse of Crohn's disease (CD) after surgery, but it is unclear whether one is superior to others. We estimated the comparative efficacy of different pharmacologic interventions for postoperative prophylaxis of CD, through a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search of the literature through March 2014. We identified randomized controlled trials that compared the abilities of mesalamine, antibiotics, budesonide, immunomodulators, anti-tumor necrosis factor α (anti-TNF) (started within 3 months of surgery), and/or placebo or no intervention to prevent clinical and/or endoscopic relapse of CD in adults after surgical resection. We used Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine direct and indirect evidence and estimate the relative effects of treatment.ResultsWe identified 21 trials comprising 2006 participants comparing 7 treatment strategies. In a network meta-analysis, compared with placebo, mesalamine (relative risk [RR], 0.60; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.37-0.88), antibiotics (RR, 0.26; 95% CrI, 0.08-0.61), immunomodulator monotherapy (RR, 0.36; 95% CrI, 0.17-0.63), immunomodulator with antibiotics (RR, 0.11; 95% CrI, 0.02-0.51), and anti-TNF monotherapy (RR, 0.04; 95% CrI, 0.00-0.14), but not budesonide (RR, 0.93; 95% CrI, 0.40-1.84), reduced the risk of clinical relapse. Likewise, compared with placebo, antibiotics (RR, 0.41; 95% CrI, 0.15-0.92), immunomodulator monotherapy (RR, 0.33; 95% CrI, 0.13-0.68), immunomodulator with antibiotics (RR, 0.16; 95% CrI, 0.04-0.48), and anti-TNF monotherapy (RR, 0.01; 95% CrI, 0.00-0.05), but neither mesalamine (RR, 0.67; 95% CrI, 0.39-1.08) nor budesonide (RR, 0.86; 95% CrI, 0.61-1.22), reduced the risk of endoscopic relapse. Anti-TNF monotherapy was the most effective pharmacologic intervention for postoperative prophylaxis, with large effect sizes relative to all other strategies (clinical relapse: RR, 0.02-0.20; endoscopic relapse: RR, 0.005-0.04).ConclusionsBased on Bayesian network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect treatment comparisons, anti-TNF monotherapy appears to be the most effective strategy for postoperative prophylaxis for CD.

Dataset Information

Comparative Effectiveness of Pharmacologic Interventions for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Comparative Effectiveness of Pharmacologic Interventions for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets