Dataset Information

Effects of replacement therapies with clotting factors in patients with hemophilia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Different prophylactic and episodic clotting factor treatments are used in the management of hemophilia. A summarize of the evidence is needed inform decision-making.

Objective

To compare the effects of factor replacement therapies in patients with hemophilia.

Methods

We performed a systematic search in PubMed, Central Cochrane Library, and Scopus. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to December 2020, which compared different factor replacement therapies in patients with hemophilia. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed whenever possible. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021225857).

Results

Nine RCTs were included in this review, of which six compared episodic with prophylactic treatment, all of them performed in patients with hemophilia A. Pooled results showed that, compared to the episodic treatment group, the annualized bleeding rate was lower in the low-dose prophylactic group (ratio of means [RM]: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.43), intermediate-dose prophylactic group (RM: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.36), and high-dose prophylactic group (RM: 0.07, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.13). With significant difference between these subgroups (p = 0.003, I2 = 82.9%). In addition, compared to the episodic treatment group, the annualized joint bleeding rate was lower in the low-dose prophylactic group (RM: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.43), intermediate-dose prophylactic group (RM of 0.14, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.27), and high-dose prophylactic group (RM of 0.08, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.16). Without significant subgroup differences. The certainty of the evidence was very low for all outcomes according to GRADE methodology. The other studies compared different types of clotting factor concentrates (CFCs), assessed pharmacokinetic prophylaxis, or compared different frequencies of medication administration.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that prophylactic treatment (at either low, intermediate, or high doses) is superior to episodic treatment for bleeding prevention. In patients with hemophilia A, the bleeding rate seems to have a dose-response effect. However, no study compared different doses of prophylactic treatment, and all results had a very low certainty of the evidence. Thus, future studies are needed to confirm these results and inform decision making.

SUBMITTER: Delgado-Flores CJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8759703 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundObesity is a major threat to public health and traditional bariatric surgery continues to have low utilization. Endoscopic treatments for obesity have emerged that offer less risk, but questions remain regarding efficacy, durability, and safety. We compared the efficacy of endoscopic bariatric procedures as compared to other existing treatments.MethodsA literature search of Embase, Cochrane Central, and Pubmed was conducted from January 1, 2014 to December 7, 2021, including endoscopic bariatric therapies that were FDA or CE approved at the time of search to non-endoscopic treatments. Thirty-seven studies involving 15,639 patients were included. Primary outcomes included % total body weight loss (%TBWL), % excess body weight loss (%EBWL), and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included quality of life data and differences in hemoglobin A1C levels. Strength of clinical trial and observational data were graded according to the Cochrane methods.ResultsIntragastric balloons achieved greater %TBWL with a range of 7.6-14.1% compared to 3.3-6.7% with lifestyle modification at 6 months, and 7.5-14.0% compared to 3.1-7.9%, respectively, at 12 months. When endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) was compared to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), ESG had less %TBWL at 4.7-14.4% compared to 18.8-26.5% after LSG at 6 months, and 4.5-18.6% as compared to 28.4-29.3%, respectively, at 12 months. For the AspireAssist, there was greater %TBWL with aspiration therapy compared to lifestyle modification at 12 months, 12.1-18.3% TBWL versus 3.5-5.9% TBWL, respectively. All endoscopic interventions had higher adverse events rates compared to lifestyle modification.ConclusionThis review is the first to evaluate various endoscopic bariatric therapies using only RCTs and observational studies for evaluation of weight loss compared with conservative management, lifestyle modification, and bariatric surgery. Endoscopic therapies result in greater weight loss compared to lifestyle modification, but not as much as bariatric surgery. Endoscopic therapies may be beneficial as an alternative to bariatric surgery.

Project description:BackgroundSpecific treatments targeting Ebola virus are crucial in managing Ebola virus disease. To support the development of clinical practice guidelines on medications for Ebola virus disease, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of therapies for patients with Ebola virus disease.MethodsIn this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Global Health, African Index Medicus, World Health Organization Global Index Medicus, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ClinicalTrials.gov, Epistemonikos, bioRxiv, medRxiv, and SSRN without language restrictions for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between database inception and Jan 1, 2022, comparing at least one therapeutic agent for Ebola virus disease against standard care or another therapeutic agent for Ebola virus disease. Two reviewers assessed study eligibility and extracted summary data independently using a standardised form. Our outcomes of interest were mortality, adverse maternal outcomes, risk of onward transmission, duration of admission to a health-care facility, functional status after Ebola virus disease, serious adverse events from medication, adverse perinatal outcomes, time to symptom resolution, and time to viral clearance. We did frequentist network meta-analyses to estimate the effect of all interventions and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to rate the certainty of the evidence. We registered the protocol with PROSPERO, CRD42022296539.FindingsWe identified 7840 records through database searches, of which two RCTs with a total of 753 patients proved eligible. Only data on mortality, the duration of admission, serious adverse events, and time to viral clearance were available for meta-analysis. Compared with standard care, REGN-EB3 (relative risk [RR] 0·40, 95% CI 0·18 to 0·89; moderate certainty) and mAb114 (0·42, 0·19 to 0·93; moderate certainty) probably reduce mortality. Whether ZMapp (0·60, 0·28 to 1·26; very low certainty) and remdesivir (0·64, 0·29 to 1·39; very low certainty) reduce mortality compared with standard care is uncertain. With high certainty, REGN-EB3 reduces mortality compared with ZMapp (0·67, 0·52 to 0·88) and remdesivir (0·63, 0·49 to 0·82). With high certainty, mAb114 also reduces mortality compared with ZMapp (0·71, 0·55 to 0·91) and remdesivir (0·66, 0·52 to 0·84). Compared with standard care, REGN-EB3, mAb114, ZMapp, and remdesivir might have little or no effect on the time to viral clearance (mean difference ranged from -0·25 days to -1·14 days; low certainty). ZMapp might reduce the duration of admission compared with standard care (mean difference -2·02 days, 95% CI -4·05 to 0·01; low certainty). Findings for all comparisons suggested that there might be little or no difference in the prevalence of serious adverse events, but certainty was low or very low in all comparisons but one.InterpretationREGN-EB3 and mAb114 separately reduce mortality compared with ZMapp, remdesivir, or standard care in patients with Ebola virus disease. These findings suggest that health-care workers should prioritise the use of REGN-EB3 and mAb114 for patients with Ebola virus disease during future outbreaks.FundingWHO.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Smoking remains the leading preventable cause of premature deaths. Several pharmacological interventions now exist to aid smokers in cessation. These include Nicotine Replacement Therapy [NRT], bupropion, and varenicline. We aimed to assess their relative efficacy in smoking cessation by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched 10 electronic medical databases (inception to Sept. 2006) and bibliographies of published reviews. We selected randomized controlled trials [RCTs] evaluating interventions for smoking cessation at 1 year, through chemical confirmation. Our primary endpoint was smoking cessation at 1 year. Secondary endpoints included short-term smoking cessation (approximately 3 months) and adverse events. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression. We compared treatment effects across interventions using head-to-head trials and when these did not exist, we calculated indirect comparisons. RESULTS: We identified 70 trials of NRT versus control at 1 year, Odds Ratio [OR] 1.71, 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 1.55-1.88, P =< 0.0001). This was consistent when examining all placebo-controlled trials (49 RCTs, OR 1.78, 95% CI, 1.60-1.99), NRT gum (OR 1.60, 95% CI, 1.37-1.86) or patch (OR 1.63, 95% CI, 1.41-1.89). NRT also reduced smoking at 3 months (OR 1.98, 95% CI, 1.77-2.21). Bupropion trials were superior to controls at 1 year (12 RCTs, OR1.56, 95% CI, 1.10-2.21, P = 0.01) and at 3 months (OR 2.13, 95% CI, 1.72-2.64). Two RCTs evaluated the superiority of bupropion versus NRT at 1 year (OR 1.14, 95% CI, 0.20-6.42). Varenicline was superior to placebo at 1 year (4 RCTs, OR 2.96, 95% CI, 2.12-4.12, P =< 0.0001) and also at approximately 3 months (OR 3.75, 95% CI, 2.65-5.30). Three RCTs evaluated the effectiveness of varenicline versus bupropion at 1 year (OR 1.58, 95% CI, 1.22-2.05) and at approximately 3 months (OR 1.61, 95% CI, 1.16-2.21). Using indirect comparisons, varenicline was superior to NRT when compared to placebo controls (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.17-2.36, P = 0.004) or to all controls at 1 year (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.22-2.45, P = 0.001). This was also the case for 3-month data. Adverse events were not systematically different across studies. CONCLUSION: NRT, bupropion and varenicline all provide therapeutic effects in assisting with smoking cessation. Direct and indirect comparisons identify a hierarchy of effectiveness.