Clinical Effects and Safety of Zhi Sou San for Cough: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Cheng N
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5536149 | biostudies-other | 2017
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundCough is listed as an adverse drug reaction (ADR) on the labels of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB). However, a causal association with cough has also been reported for angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), which have frequently been used as comparator drugs in the registration clinical trials of ARBs. This prompted us to examine the possible influence of using comparator drugs with well-known ADRs on the safety reporting of investigational drugs in blinded randomized clinical trials.Methods and findingsThe double-blinded, randomized clinical trials with comparator drugs were identified in the Japanese dossiers for the new drug applications of ARBs. The risk ratios (RR) of reporting cough and headache in ARB arms were calculated for each ARB by comparing trials using ACEIs and trials using non-ACEIs, were then combined with a meta-analysis. 23 trials with a total of 6643 patients were identified, consisting 6 trials using an ACEI comparator including 819 ARB patients and 17 trials using a non-ACEI comparator including 5824 ARB patients. The combined RR of cough reporting was significantly elevated (20.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.47 to 57.76), indicating more frequent reporting of cough in clinical trials using an ACEI comparator. In contrast, the combined RR of headache, a negative control, was insignificant (1.45; 95% CI, 0.34 to 6.22).ConclusionThe use of comparators with well-known ADRs in blinded randomized trials produces potential bias in the reporting frequency of ADRs for investigational drugs. The selection of appropriate comparator drugs should be critical in unbiased safety assessment in double-blinded, randomized clinical trials and thus have relevance in reviewing the safety results from a regulatory point of view.
| S-EPMC3781030 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although morphine is the standard opioid analgesic for pain control and has been widely used, certain drug-induced adverse effects have been reported as intolerable and need to be addressed. Nalbuphine may have a few advantages over morphine in this respect. We aimed to describe the effect of nalbuphine as well as its safety compared to morphine by analyzing published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with meta-analysis approach. We analysed 15 trials (820 patients). Overall, there was no evidence to show that the effect of pain relief had any difference between nalbuphine and morphine (pooled relative risks [RRs], 1.01; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.11; P = 0.90). On the other hand, the incidences of pruritus, nausea, vomiting, respiratory depression were significantly lower in nalbuphine group compared with morphine group, and the pooled RRs were 0.78(95%CI, 0.602-0.997; P = 0.048) for nausea, 0.65(95%CI, 0.50-0.85; P = 0.001) for vomiting, 0.17(95%CI, 0.09-0.34; P < 0.0001) for pruritus, and 0.27(95%CI, 0.12-0.57; P = 0.0007) for respiratory depression. The analgesic efficacy of nalbuphine is comparable to morphine, but nalbuphine provides a better safety profile than morphine in the aspect of certain side-effects, especially related to pruritus and respiratory depression.
| S-EPMC4454168 | biostudies-other
Project description:What is known and objectiveEdaravone is a new antioxidant and hydroxyl radical scavenger. Although there is evidence that it improves clinical outcomes of patients with acute ischaemic stroke (AIS), it is not yet widely accepted for treatment of AIS in Western countries. We further investigated the efficacy and safety of edaravone through this meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs).MethodPubmed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were screened up to December 2020 for original articles from SCI journals that published in English. RCTs that compared edaravone versus placebo or no intervention in adult patients and reported the efficacy or safety of edaravone were regarded as eligible. Mortality was regarded as the primary outcome and the improvement of neurological impairment was regarded as the secondary outcome. Safety evaluation was conducted according to the incidence of adverse events. Review Manager 5.3 was employed to perform the assessment of the risk of bias and data synthesis. The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials was employed to assess the risk of bias.Results and discussionSeven randomized controlled trials with 2069 patients were included. For the incidence of mortality, the pooled RR for studies that evaluated edaravone after three-month follow-up was 0.55 (95% Cl, 0.43-0.7, I2 = 0, P < 0.01). The pooled RR for improvement of neurological impairment at the three months follow-up was 1.54 (95% CI, 1.27-1.87, I2 = 0, P < 0.01) in four RCTs. On subgroup analysis of studies that were conducted in Asia, the RR was 1.56 (95% CI, 1.27-1.90, I2 = 0%; P < 0.01); the pooled RR for studies that conducted in Europe was 1.32 (95% CI, 0.64-2.72; P = 0.45); the pooled RR for studies that used edaravone for two weeks was 1.42 (95% CI, 1.10 to 1.83, I2 = 0%; P < 0.01); the pooled RR for studies that used edaravone for one week was 1.64 (95% CI, 1.24-2.16, I2 = 0%; P < 0.01); the pooled RR for studies that conducted in patients with mean age equal to or over 60 years was 1.52 (95% CI, 1.24-1.87, I2 = 0%; P < 0.01); and the pooled RR for studies that conducted in patients with mean age less than 60 was 1.80 (95% CI, 1.05-3.08, I2 = 0%; P = 0.03). For the incidence of any treatment-related adverse events, the pooled RR for studies that evaluated edaravone during treatment was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.51-1.34, I2 = 0, P = 0.43). The difference of the incidence of any treatment-related adverse events between two groups was not statistically significant.What is new and conclusionThe limited studies indicate that edaravone can improve neurological impairment with a survival benefit at three-month follow-up, regardless of the mean age and course of treatment. It is worthy of promotion in the clinical treatment of AIS in Asian countries. More well-designed RCTs with larger sample sizes are needed to determine the benefits of edaravone in patients from Western countries.
| S-EPMC8359409 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) has been progressively implemented in most developed countries for approximately 10 years. In order to increase the protection of the vaccines, a 9-valent vaccine (HPV9) was developed, which provides protection against nine types of the virus. Studies evaluating its safety are rare. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis of three clinical trials assessing adverse effects on women randomly vaccinated with HPV9 or tetravalent vaccine (HPV4), with the objective of analyzing whether the HPV9 is as safe as HPV4. An electronic data search was performed through the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and SciELO databases. The studies selected 27,465 women who received one of the two vaccines. Pain (OR 1.72; 95% CI 1.62-1.82) and erythema (OR 1.29; 95% CI 1.21-1.36) occurred significantly more in the HPV9 group. However, there was no significant difference between the groups for the following adverse effects: headache (OR 1.07; 95% CI 0.99-1.15), dizziness (OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.93-1.27), and fatigue (OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.91-1.30), and the occurrence of serious events related to vaccination was similarly rare among those vaccinated. Therefore, our findings demonstrate that HPV9 in female patients is as safe as the tetravalent vaccine.
| S-EPMC5546048 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is currently being examined for COVID-19. No previous meta-analysis has evaluated its side effects versus placebo. We conducted this meta-analysis to compare the safety of HCQ versus placebo. METHODS:Two authors independently searched PubMed and EMBASE databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults comparing the adverse events (AEs) of HCQ versus placebo for any indication. Peto odds ratios (Peto ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on random-effects models. The heterogeneity (I2) was assessed using Cochran's Q test. RESULTS:Nine RCTs (eight were double-blind) with a total of 916 patients were included. HCQ caused significantly more skin pigmentation than placebo (Peto OR, 4.64; 95% CI, 1.13 to 19.00; P-value?=?0.033; I2?=?0%). The increase in other AEs did not reach statistical significance: rash (Peto OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.3 to 3.77; P-value?=?0.03; I2?=?0%); gastrointestinal AEs (Peto OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.55 to 3.72; P-value?=?0.46; I2?=?15.17%); headache (Peto OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 0.65 to 5.78; P-value?=?0.23; I2?=?9.99%); dizziness (Peto OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.49 to 3.52; P-value?=?0.58; I2?=?0%); fatigue (Peto OR, 2.13; 95% CI, 0.76 to 5.98; P-value?=?0.15; I2?=?0%); and visual AEs (Peto OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 0.76 to 3.41; P-value?=?0.22; I2?=?0%). Cardiac toxicity was not reported. CONCLUSIONS:This meta-analysis of RCTs found a significantly higher risk of skin pigmentation in HCQ users versus placebo. More data are needed to evaluate HCQ in the context of COVID-19 treatment.
| S-EPMC7342171 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Gout, a common medical condition that causes pain, can be treated by painkillers and anti-inflammatories. Indometacin and etoricoxib are two such drugs. However, no synthesized evidence exists comparing etoricoxib with indometacin in treating patients with gout. Methods:We searched PubMed, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and the Cochrane Library without restrictions on language or publication date for potential randomized clinical trials comparing etoricoxib with indometacin for gout. The meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model. Results:Search results yielded 313 references from six electronic databases, four of which met the eligibility criteria. These four were randomized clinical trials, and they involved a total of 609 patients with gouty arthritis. No significant differences were observed in pain score change, tenderness, or swelling between etoricoxib and indometacin; the mean differences were -0.05 (95% CI, -0.21 to 0.10), -0.06 (95% CI, -0.18 to 0.05), and -0.04 (95% CI, -0.17 to 0.09). However, the pooled data revealed that significantly fewer overall adverse events occurred in the etoricoxib group (n=105, 33.5%) than in the indometacin group (n=130, 44.1%) and the risk ratio was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.62-0.94). Conclusion:Our meta-analysis revealed that etoricoxib and indometacin have similar effects on pain relief. However, etoricoxib has a significantly lower risk of adverse events than does indometacin, especially digestive system-related adverse events.
| S-EPMC6305166 | biostudies-other
Project description:Objective: Although Xiaoyao-san (XYS) is a popular herbal remedy for indigestion, there is insufficient evidence to recommend it as a treatment option for functional dyspepsia (FD). This review aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of XYS in patients with FD, compared to conventional Western medicine (WM). Methods: Two independent reviewers searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using 11 electronic databases, including Medline and Embase, to evaluate therapeutic effects of XYS on FD up to 31 January 2023. The primary outcome was the total clinical efficacy rate (TCE), and secondary outcomes included scores of dyspepsia-related symptoms (DSS) and incidence of adverse events (AEs). The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane collaboration tool, and data synthesis and subgroup analyses were performed using the Review Manager program. Results: Six studies involving 707 participants were included in the meta-analysis. XYS significantly improved TCE compared to WM (RR = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.05, 1.26, p = 0.002) with high heterogeneity (I2 = 59%, p = 0.06). Combination therapy also showed higher TCE than WM alone (RR = 1.22, 95% CI: 1.05, 1.41, p = 0.008), and the heterogeneity was low (I2 = 0%, p = 0.86). The results showed a greater reduction in DSS in the XYS and combination therapy groups than in the WM alone group (SMD = −0.72, 95% CI: −0.90, −0.53, p < 0.00001) with low heterogeneity (I2 = 44%, p = 0.15), especially for abdominal distension and upper abdominal pain. AEs occurred less frequently in the XYS and combination therapy groups than in the WM alone group (RR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.07, 0.63, p = 0.006), and the heterogeneity was low (I2 = 45%, p = 0.18). The certainty of the evidence for each outcome was rated from “very low” to “high.” Conclusion: This review suggests that XYS is effective and safe for reducing complaints in patients with FD. However, high-quality RCTs should be conducted to establish more convincing therapeutic evidence of XYS for the treatment of FD. Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, CRD42020178842
| S-EPMC10130649 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction: Gastroesophageal reflux-induced chronic cough (GERC) is one of the most common etiologies of chronic cough. Despite the growing prevalence and interest in GERC, no effective treatment is currently available. In our study, we used a combination of herbal medicines, Ojeok-san (OJS) plus Saengmaek-san (SMS), for the treatment of GERC. Methods: We conducted a pilot, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm, single-center clinical trial to assess the feasibility of our study protocol, as our study is the first herbal medicine trial for GERC. All enrolled participants were randomly assigned to either the intervention or placebo group in a 1:1 ratio and were administered trial drugs three times a day for 6 weeks, with an evaluation visit performed every 2 weeks for their efficacy and safety assessment until the follow-up visit (week 8). We evaluated the severity and frequency of cough, cough-specific quality of life, airway hypersensitivity, and reflux-related gastrointestinal symptoms, as well as pattern identification, to investigate the complex mechanisms of reflux cough syndrome. Results: A total of 30 participants were enrolled, and 25 completed the study at Kyung Hee University Korean Medicine Hospital from 26 December 2018 to 31 May 2021. OJS plus SMS significantly improved the cough diary score (CDS), cough visual analog scale, Korean version of the Leicester Cough Questionnaire, Hull Airway Reflux Questionnaire, and Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale after the treatment compared to the baseline. Notably, OJS plus SMS showed significant efficacy in the daytime and total CDS compared with the placebo. Only one adverse event was observed during the trial, and no serious adverse events occurred. Additionally, we achieved successful results in feasibility outcomes by exceeding the ratio of 80%. Conclusion: We confirmed the feasibility of our trial design and demonstrated the potential of OJS plus SMS in relieving the severity of cough and GI symptoms in GERC patients with safe and successful feasibility results. We anticipate that our study results will be used as the basis for further large-scale, well-designed, confirmatory trials to evaluate the safety and efficacy of OJS plus SMS in GERC. Clinical Trial Registration: [https://cris.nih.go.kr], identifier WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Clinical Research Information Service [KCT0003115].
| S-EPMC8923584 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:As a new generation antihistamine, fexofenadine has been widely used in allergic diseases. However, there is still a lack of collective evidence regarding the antihistamine effects and safety profiles of fexofenadine relative to other antihistamine drugs and placebo. Therefore, we aimed to systematically evaluate the antihistamine effects and safety of fexofenadine. METHODS:An electronic literature search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed using Embase, Cochrane and PubMed from establishment to January 1st, 2018. RCTs comparing the antihistamine effects or safety (adverse events, sedative effects, and cognitive/psychomotor function) of fexofenadine with either other antihistamines or placebo for healthy subjects and patients with allergy were selected. RESULTS:Fifty-one studies of 14,551 participants met the inclusion criteria. When compared with the first-generation antihistamines, fexofenadine produced significantly lower adverse events frequency (OR = 0.446; 95% CI: 0.214 to 0.929, P = 0.031), significantly lower sedative effects frequency (OR = 0.265; 95% CI: 0.072 to 0.976, P = 0.046) and significantly less change of all cognitive/psychomotor function. When compared with the second-generation antihistamines, fexofenadine produced significantly marginal sedative effects (OR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.93; P = 0.02) and significantly less change of most of the cognitive/psychomotor function. When compared with placebo, fexofenadine produced more significant antihistamine effects. CONCLUSIONS:Fexofenadine has a positive antihistamine effect, which is probably no worse than the second-generation antihistamines. Fexofenadine probably has a favorable safety profile, which is more likely better than that of the first-generation antihistamines. There is lack of data to support that fexofenadine has a better overall safety profile compared to the second-generation antihistamines, however, some presently available evidence on sedative effects and certain aspects of cognitive/psychomotor function favors fexofenadine. Therefore, fexofenadine may be worthy of recommendation for safety related workers.
| S-EPMC6884918 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cannabidiol (CBD) is being investigated as a treatment for several medical disorders but there is uncertainty about its safety. We conducted the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the adverse effects of CBD across all medical indications. Double-blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials lasting ≥7 days were included. Twelve trials contributed data from 803 participants to the meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, CBD was associated with an increased likelihood of withdrawal for any reason (OR 2.61, 95% CI: 1.38-4.96) or due to adverse events (OR 2.65, 95% CI: 1.04-6.80), any serious adverse event (OR 2.30, 95% CI: 1.18-4.48), serious adverse events related to abnormal liver function tests (OR 11.19, 95% CI: 2.09-60.02) or pneumonia (OR 5.37, 95% CI: 1.17-24.65), any adverse event (OR 1.55, 95% CI: 1.03-2.33), adverse events due to decreased appetite (OR 3.56, 95% CI: 1.94-6.53), diarrhoea (OR 2.61, 95% CI: 1.46-4.67), somnolence (OR 2.23, 95% CI: 1.07-4.64) and sedation (OR 4.21, 95% CI: 1.18-15.01). Associations with abnormal liver function tests, somnolence, sedation and pneumonia were limited to childhood epilepsy studies, where CBD may have interacted with other medications such as clobazam and/or sodium valproate. After excluding studies in childhood epilepsy, the only adverse outcome associated with CBD treatment was diarrhoea (OR 5.03, 95% CI: 1.44-17.61). In summary, the available data from clinical trials suggest that CBD is well tolerated and has relatively few serious adverse effects, however interactions with other medications should be monitored carefully. Additional safety data from clinical trials outside of childhood epilepsy syndromes and from studies of over-the-counter CBD products are needed to assess whether the conclusions drawn from clinical trials can be applied more broadly.
| S-EPMC7608221 | biostudies-literature