Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of malaria prevention measures: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Malaria causes significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. There are several preventive measures that are currently employed, including insecticide-treated nets (ITNs, including long-lasting insecticidal nets and insecticidal-treated bed nets), indoor residual spraying (IRS), prophylactic drugs (PD), and untreated nets (UN). However, it is unclear which measure is the most effective for malaria prevention. We therefore undertook a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of different preventive measures on incidence of malaria infection.A systematic literature review was undertaken across four medical and life sciences databases (PubMed, Cochrane Central, Embase, and Web of Science) from their inception to July 2016 to compare the effectiveness of different preventive measures on malaria incidence. Data from the included studies were analysed for the effectiveness of several measures against no intervention (NI). This was carried out using an automated generalized pairwise modeling (GPM) framework for network meta-analysis to generate mixed treatment effects against a common comparator of no intervention (NI).There were 30 studies that met the inclusion criteria from 1998-2016. The GPM framework led to a final ranking of effectiveness of measures in the following order from best to worst: PD, ITN, IRS and UN, in comparison with NI. However, only ITN (RR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.32-0.74) showed precision while other methods [PD (RR: 0.24, 95% CI: 0.004-15.43), IRS (RR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.20-1.56) and UN (RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.28-1.90)] demonstrating considerable uncertainty associated with their point estimates.Current evidence is strong for the protective effect of ITN interventions in malaria prevention. Even though ITNs were found to be the only preventive measure with statistical support for their effectiveness, the role of other malaria control measures may be important adjuncts in the global drive to eliminate malaria.

SUBMITTER: Wangdi K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5869791 | biostudies-other | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative effectiveness of malaria prevention measures: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Wangdi Kinley K Furuya-Kanamori Luis L Clark Justin J Barendregt Jan J JJ Gatton Michelle L ML Banwell Cathy C Kelly Gerard C GC Doi Suhail A R SAR Clements Archie C A ACA

Parasites & vectors 20180327 1

<h4>Background</h4>Malaria causes significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. There are several preventive measures that are currently employed, including insecticide-treated nets (ITNs, including long-lasting insecticidal nets and insecticidal-treated bed nets), indoor residual spraying (IRS), prophylactic drugs (PD), and untreated nets (UN). However, it is unclear which measure is the most effective for malaria prevention. We therefore undertook a network meta-analysis to compare the effica ...[more]

PMID: 29587882

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective To compare the efficacy, safety, and cost effectiveness of direct acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for patients with atrial fibrillation.Design Systematic review, network meta-analysis, and cost effectiveness analysis. Data sources Medline, PreMedline, Embase, and The Cochrane Library.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Published randomised trials evaluating the use of a DOAC, vitamin K antagonist, or antiplatelet drug for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation.Results 23 randomised trials involving 94?656 patients were analysed: 13 compared a DOAC with warfarin dosed to achieve a target INR of 2.0-3.0. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily (odds ratio 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.94), dabigatran 150 mg twice daily (0.65, 0.52 to 0.81), edoxaban 60 mg once daily (0.86, 0.74 to 1.01), and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (0.88, 0.74 to 1.03) reduced the risk of stroke or systemic embolism compared with warfarin. The risk of stroke or systemic embolism was higher with edoxaban 60 mg once daily (1.33, 1.02 to 1.75) and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (1.35, 1.03 to 1.78) than with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily. The risk of all-cause mortality was lower with all DOACs than with warfarin. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily (0.71, 0.61 to 0.81), dabigatran 110 mg twice daily (0.80, 0.69 to 0.93), edoxaban 30 mg once daily (0.46, 0.40 to 0.54), and edoxaban 60 mg once daily (0.78, 0.69 to 0.90) reduced the risk of major bleeding compared with warfarin. The risk of major bleeding was higher with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily than apixaban 5 mg twice daily (1.33, 1.09 to 1.62), rivaroxaban 20 mg twice daily than apixaban 5 mg twice daily (1.45, 1.19 to 1.78), and rivaroxaban 20 mg twice daily than edoxaban 60 mg once daily (1.31, 1.07 to 1.59). The risk of intracranial bleeding was substantially lower for most DOACs compared with warfarin, whereas the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding was higher with some DOACs than warfarin. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily was ranked the highest for most outcomes, and was cost effective compared with warfarin.Conclusions The network meta-analysis informs the choice of DOACs for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. Several DOACs are of net benefit compared with warfarin. A trial directly comparing DOACs would overcome the need for indirect comparisons to be made through network meta-analysis.Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD 42013005324.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the most efficacious treatment for eradication of Helicobacter pylori with the lowest likelihood of some common adverse events among pre-recommended and newer treatment regimens.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesCochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase without language or date restrictions.Study selectionFull text reports of randomised controlled trials that compared different eradication treatments for H pylori among adults.ResultsOf the 15,565 studies identified, 143 were eligible and included. Data on 14 kinds of treatments were available. Of 91 possible comparisons for the efficacy outcome, 34 were compared directly and the following treatments performed better: seven days of concomitant treatment (proton pump inhibitor and three kinds of antibiotics administered together), 10 or 14 days of concomitant treatment, 10 or 14 days of probiotic supplemented triple treatment (standard triple treatment which is probiotic supplemented), 10 or 14 days of levofloxacin based triple treatment (proton pump inhibitor, levofloxacin, and antibiotic administered together), 14 days of hybrid treatment (proton pump inhibitor and amoxicillin used for seven days, followed by a proton pump inhibitor, amoxicillin, clarithromycin, and 5-nitroimidazole for another seven days), and 10 or 14 days of sequential treatment (five or seven days of a proton pump inhibitor plus amoxicillin, followed by five or seven additional days of a proton pump inhibitor plus clarithromycin and 5-nitroimidazole or amoxicillin). In terms of tolerance, all treatments were considered tolerable, but seven days of probiotic supplemented triple treatment and seven days of levofloxacin based triple treatment ranked best in terms of the proportion of adverse events reported.ConclusionComparison of different eradication treatments for H pylori showed that concomitant treatments, 10 or 14 days of probiotic supplemented triple treatment, 10 or 14 days of levofloxacin based triple treatment, 14 days of hybrid treatment, and 10 or 14 days of sequential treatment might be better alternatives for the eradication of H pylori.

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.

Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of malaria prevention measures: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Publications

Comparative effectiveness of malaria prevention measures: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets