Comparison of the effectiveness, safety, and costs of anti-Parkinson drugs: A multiple-center retrospective study.

AIMS: This study aimed to systematically compare the effectiveness, safety, and costs of different anti-Parkinson drugs (APDs). METHODS: This is a multi-center study that retrospectively analyzed the data of 8420 outpatients with PD from 2014 to 2019 across 30 tertiary hospitals in China. The effectiveness was evaluated by changes in total dosages of APDs, normalized by levodopa equivalent dose (LED) and presented as ΔLEDs; levodopa equivalent dose cost (LEDc) represented the daily cost of APDs; and newly added diagnostics were represented as APDs-related adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 384 patients with eligible medical records for three consecutive years were enrolled. Patients treated with carbidopa/levodopa or levodopa/benserazide had significantly lower mean ΔLEDs than other groups (p < 0.01), followed by pramipexole and selegiline. The piribedil group had the highest ΔLEDs, with mean differences of 112.56-355.04 mg compared to other groups (p < 0.01). Meanwhile, LEDc in the levodopa/benserazide, carbidopa/levodopa, and piribedil groups were significantly lower than those in pramipexole or selegiline groups ($0.088-0.135/day for levodopa/benserazide; $0.070-0.126/day for carbidopa/levodopa; $0.112-0.138/day for piribedil; $0.290-0.332/day for pramipexole; $0.229-0.544/day for selegiline; p < 0.01). Patients with piribedil had more adverse events, with an incidence rate of 35.7%, followed by levodopa/benserazide (25.6%), selegiline (23.5%), carbidopa/levodopa (23.3%), and pramipexole (16.4%). Pramipexole showed a lower incidence rate of adverse events than piribedil, including neuropsychiatric symptoms (p = 0.006), headache/dizziness (p = 0.016), and gastrointestinal symptoms (p = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: Carbidopa/levodopa or levodopa/benserazide might exhibit better clinical improvement with less medical cost, while piribedil presented less clinical improvement but a higher risk of headache/dizziness, gastrointestinal, and neuropsychiatric symptoms.

Efficacy and safety of selegiline for the treatment of Parkinson's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Drug efficacy generally varies with different durations. There is no systematic review analyzing the effect of selegiline for Parkinson's disease (PD) on different treatment duration. This study aims to analyze how the efficacy and safety of selegiline changes for PD over time. Methods: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang Database were systematically retrieved for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of selegiline for PD. The search period was from inception to January 18th, 2022. The efficacy outcomes were measured by the mean change from baseline in the total and sub Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) and Webster Rating Scale (WRS) scores. The safety outcomes were measured by the proportion of participants having any adverse events overall and that in different system organ classes. Results: Among the 3,786 studies obtained, 27 RCTs and 11 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-three studies reported an outcome which was also reported in at least one other study, and were included in meta-analyses. Compared with placebo, selegiline was found with a stronger reduction of total UPDRS score with increasing treatment duration [mean difference and 95% CIs in 1 month: -3.56 (-6.67, -0.45); 3 months: -3.32 (-3.75, -2.89); 6 months: -7.46 (-12.60, -2.32); 12 months: -5.07 (-6.74, -3.41); 48 months: -8.78 (-13.75, -3.80); 60 months: -11.06 (-16.19, -5.94)]. A similar trend was also found from the point estimates in UPDRS I, II, III, HAMD and WRS score. The results of observational studies on efficacy were not entirely consistent. As for safety, compared with placebo, selegiline had higher risk of incurring any adverse events [rate: 54.7% vs. 62.1%; odd ratio and 95% CIs: 1.58 (1.02, 2.44)], with the excess adverse events mainly manifested as neuropsychiatric disorders [26.7% vs. 31.6%; 1.36 (1.06, 1.75)] and no significant change over time. The statistically difference in overall adverse event between selegiline and active controls was not found. Conclusion: Selegiline was effective in improving total UPDRS score with increasing treatment duration, and had a higher risk of incurring adverse events, especially the adverse events in the neuropsychiatric system. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: PROSPERO CRD42021233145.

Relationship between antibiotic exposure and carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae infection within four types of control patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study attempted to identify the relationship between antibiotic exposure and risk of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKP) infection. METHODS: Antibiotic exposure was analysed as a risk factor for CRKP infection, cases of which were extracted from research articles indexed in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Relevant studies published until January 2023 were reviewed, and a meta-analysis was conducted on antibiotic exposure within four types of control groups, which comprised 52 studies. RESULTS: The four types of control groups included carbapenem-susceptible K. pneumoniae infections (CSKP; comparison 1); other infections, especially without CRKP infection (comparison 2); CRKP colonisation (comparison 3); and no infection (comparison 4). Carbapenems exposure and Aminoglycosides exposure were two risk factors common to the four comparison groups. Compared with the risk of CSKP infection, tigecycline exposure in bloodstream infections and quinolone exposure within 30 days were associated with an increased risk of CRKP infection. However, the risk of CRKP infection associated with tigecycline exposure in mixed (MIX) infections (infections involving two or more different infection sites) and quinolone exposure within 90 days was similar to the risk of CSKP infection. CONCLUSION: Carbapenems and Aminoglycosides exposure are likely risk factors for CRKP infection. Antibiotic exposure time as a continuous variable was not associated with the risk of CRKP infection, compared with the risk of CSKP infection. Tigecycline exposure in MIX infections and quinolone exposure within 90 days may not increase the risk of CRKP infection.

Efficacy and Safety of Shortened Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT: To update the efficacy and safety of short-term (≤3 months) dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and standard (6-12 months) DAPT in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. In addition, we also explored the duration of DAPT in patients at high bleeding risk (HBR). In PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library, we electronically searched among all the studies from the establishment of the database to December 8, 2021, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Nine randomized controlled trials (45,661 patients) ultimately met the inclusion criteria. The pooled analysis revealed that, compared with standard DAPT, ≤3-month DAPT significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular event {hazard ratio (HR) = 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.82-0.97]}, all-cause mortality [HR = 0.88, 95% CI (0.78-0.99)], cardiovascular mortality [HR = 0.79, 95% CI (0.65-0.97)], major bleeding [HR = 0.72, 95% CI (0.56-0.93)], and any bleeding [HR = 0.57, 95% CI (0.50-0.66)], while no significant differences in the risk of myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and stroke. In patients with HBR, the results showed that ≤3-month DAPT significantly reduced major bleeding [HR = 0.35, 95% CI (0.14-0.88)] and any bleeding [HR = 0.53, 95% CI (0.41-0.67)] compared with standard DAPT, while the risk of other outcomes was not statistically different. In conclusion, this study showed that ≤3-month DAPT may be a valid option for most patients after percutaneous coronary intervention. Because reductions in major adverse cardiovascular event, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality were not seen in patients with HBR, this also highlights the need for specific studies in these patients about optimal duration of antiplatelet therapy.