Dataset Information

Overall Efficacy and Safety of Safinamide in Parkinson's Disease: A Systematic Review and a Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Safinamide is a novel anti-parkinsonian drug with possible anti-dyskinetic properties. Parkinson's disease (PD) is a complex disease. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of safinamide administration compared to placebo in PD patients on multiple outcomes.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, LILACS, and trial databases were searched up to 23 December 2020 for randomized controlled studies (RCTs) comparing safinamide to placebo, alone or as add-on therapy in PD. Data were extracted from literature and regulatory agencies. Primary outcomes were ON-time without troublesome dyskinesia, OFF-time, and Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) section III (UPDRS-III). Secondary outcomes included any dyskinesia rating scale (DRS), ON-time with troublesome dyskinesia, UPDRS-II, and Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire 39 (PDQ-39). In order to estimate mean difference (MD) and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI), generic inverse variance and Mantel-Haenszel methods were used for continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively. Analyses were performed grouping by PD with (PDwMF) or without (PDwoMF) motor fluctuations, safinamide dose, and concomitant dopaminergic treatment. Summary of findings with GRADE were performed.

Results

Six studies with a total of 2792 participants were identified. In PDwMF patients, safinamide 100 mg as add-on to levodopa (L-dopa) significantly increased ON-time without troublesome dyskinesia (MD = 0.95 h; 95% CI from 0.41 to 1.49), reduced OFF-time (MD = - 1.06 h; 95% CI from - 1.60 to - 0.51), and improved UPDRS-III (MD = - 2.77; 95% CI from - 4.27 to - 1.28) with moderate quality of evidence. Similar results were observed for the 50 mg dose. However, the quality of evidence was moderate only for ON-time without troublesome dyskinesia, whereas for OFF-time and UPDRS-III was low. In PDwoMF patients taking a single dopamine agonist, safinamide 100 mg resulted in little to no clinically significant improvement in UPDRS-III (MD = - 1.84; 95% CI from - 3.19 to - 0.49), with moderate quality of evidence. Conversely, in PDwoMF patients, the 200 mg and 50 mg doses showed nonsignificant improvement in UPDRS-III, with very low and moderate quality of evidence, respectively. In PDwMF patients taking safinamide 100 mg or 50 mg, nonsignificant differences were observed for ON-time with troublesome dyskinesia and DRS, with high and low quality of evidence, respectively. In the same patients, UPDRS-II was significantly improved at the 100 mg and 50 mg dose, with high and moderate quality of evidence. In PDwoMF, UPDRS-II showed a little yet significant difference only at 100 mg, with low quality of evidence. PDQ-39 resulted significantly improved only with the 100 mg dose in PDwMF, with low quality of evidence.

Conclusion

Overall, safinamide is effective in PDwMF patients taking L-dopa both at 100 and 50 mg daily. Evidence for efficacy in early PD is limited. Further trials are needed to better evaluate the anti-dyskinetic properties of safinamide.

SUBMITTER: Giossi R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8004480 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective: The effects of rotigotine transdermal patch (RTG) on the neuropsychiatric symptoms of Parkinson's disease (PD) outcomes remain controversial. The aim of this review was to determine the efficacy and safety of RTG on the neuropsychiatric symptoms of PD. Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing RTG and placebo in PD up to May 10, 2021. We analyzed the data using Review Manager 5.2 software. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Approach. In order to avoid false-positive results caused by random error, we use TSA software for trial sequential analysis (TSA). Results: We included 10 studies (1,844 patients). The meta-analysis showed that, compared with placebo, RTG can significantly improve the scores for Apathy Scale (MD = -1.68, 95% confidence interval, CI: -2.74 to -0.62, P = 0.002; moderate certainty), Beck Depression Inventory-II (MD = -1.19, 95% CI: -2.26 to -0.11, P = 0.03; moderate certainty), the Non-Motor Symptoms Scale (MD = -3. 66, 95% CI: -4. 30 to -3.01, P < 0.00001; moderate certainty), the sleep/fatigue domains of the Parkinson's Disease Non-motor Symptom Assessment Scale (MD = -2.03, 95% CI: -3.08 to -0.98, P = 0.0001; moderate certainty), the mood/apathy domains of the Non-motor Symptom Scale (MD = -2.48, 95% CI: -4.07 to -0.89, P = 0.002; high certainty), the eight-item Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (MD = -4. 93, 95% CI: -6.79 to -3.07, P < 0.00001; moderate certainty), and the 39-item Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (MD = -3.52, 95% CI: -5.25 to -1.79, P < 0.0001; high certainty). However, there was no statistically significant difference on the Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale (MD = -0.12, 95% CI: -0.58 to 0.34, P = 0.61). Our results showed that RTG exerts a positive effect on sleep. According to the TSA, the results implied that, except for the Beck Depression Inventory-II, conclusive evidence have been obtained in the RTG group. It has been proven in our meta-analysis that rotigotine has good safety and tolerability. Conclusions: RTG can effectively improve the neuropsychiatric symptoms, sleep quality, and quality of life in patients with PD.

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.