Efficacy and safety of dasotraline in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and Aim: Pharmacotherapeutic options for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are limited due to adverse effects and inadequate efficacy of existing drugs. Clinical trials were conducted on dasotraline in search of a safer and more efficacious alternatives to stimulant agents. This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dasotraline in ADHD compared to placebo. Methods: The reviewers extracted data from five relevant clinical trials after a literature search on Medline/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases and Clinical Trial Registries. Quality assessment was done using the risk of bias assessment tool, and the random-effects model was used to estimate the effect size. Sub-group analysis, meta-regression, and sensitivity analysis were done as applicable. PRISMA guidelines were followed in the selection, analysis, and reporting of findings. Results: Dasotraline significantly reduced the ADHD total symptom score (SMD: -0.35; 95% CI: -0.55 to -0.15; P < 0.001), hyperactivity/impulsivity subscale score (SMD: -0.27; 95% CI: -0.44 to -0.11; P = 0.001), inattentiveness sub-scale score (SMD: -0.33; 95% CI: -0.53 to -0.14; P < 0.001), and CGI-S (SMD: -0.25; 95% CI: -0.42 to -0.08; P = 0.003). Sub-group analysis showed a significant reduction of ADHD symptoms in both pediatric and adult age groups. Meta-regression showed a significant association between SMD of ADHD symptom score reduction and the duration of dasotraline therapy. The incidence of decreased appetite showed dose dependence but not the incidence of insomnia. Conclusions: Dasotraline 4 mg (in children) and 6 mg (in adults) can improve the clinical outcome in patients with ADHD by improving symptoms and global functioning with acceptable tolerability.PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42022321979.

Effect of Virgin Coconut Oil (VCO) on Cardiometabolic Parameters in Patients with Dyslipidemia: A Randomized, Add-on Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Statin monotherapy for dyslipidemia is limited by adverse effects and limited effectiveness in certain subgroups like metabolic syndrome. Add-on therapy with an agent with a known safety profile may improve clinical outcomes, and virgin coconut oil (VCO) may be the candidate agent for improving the cardiometabolic profile. The present study was conducted to evaluate the effect of add-on VCO with atorvastatin in dyslipidemia in adults. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind clinical trial was conducted on 150 patients with dyslipidemia who were randomized into control and test groups. The control group received atorvastatin monotherapy, whereas the test group received add-on VCO with atorvastatin for 8 weeks. At baseline, demographic, clinical, and biochemical parameters were assessed and repeated after 8 weeks of therapy. The main outcome measures were lipid profile, cardiovascular risk indices, 10-year cardiovascular risk, body fat compositions, and thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS). RESULTS: The increase in HDL in the test group was significantly greater than in the control group (MD: 2.76; 95%CI: 2.43-3.08; p < 0.001). The changes in the atherogenic index (p = 0.003), coronary risk index (p < 0.001), cardiovascular risk index (p = 0.001), and TBARS (p < 0.001) were significantly greater in the test group. The decrease in LDL, total cholesterol and lipoprotein(a), were significantly higher in the control group. There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to the changes in triglyceride, VLDL, and 10-year cardiovascular risk. CONCLUSIONS: Add-on VCO (1000 mg/day) with atorvastatin (10 mg/day) can achieve a better clinical outcome in patients with dyslipidemia by increasing HDL and improving oxidative stress cardiovascular risk indices.

Efficacy and safety of tramadol in the treatment of opioid withdrawal: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacotherapeutic options for the treatment of opioid withdrawal are limited by abuse potential, adverse effects, and lack of availability of existing drugs. The results from previous clinical trials on tramadol are contradictory and non-conclusive; hence the present meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tramadol in the treatment of opioid withdrawal. METHODS: Reviewers extracted data from eight relevant clinical trials after a literature search on MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane databases, and clinical trial registries. Quality assessment was done using the risk-of-bias assessment tool, and the random-effects model was used to estimate effect size in frequentist and Bayesian approaches. Subgroup analysis, meta-regression, and sensitivity analysis were done as applicable. PRISMA guidelines were followed in reporting findings. RESULTS: Tramadol significantly reduced opioid withdrawal scale score (SMD: -0.44; 95%CI: -0.76 to -0.13; PI: -1.54 to 0.71; p = 0.006) when all comparators were considered together in the frequentist approach but the reduction was non-significant in Bayesian approach. However, the subgroup analysis revealed no significant difference between tramadol and comparators like placebo (SMD: -1.12; 95%CI: -2.69 to 0.45) buprenorphine (SMD: -0.21; 95%CI: -0.43 to 0.01), clonidine (SMD: -0.26; 95%CI: -0.55 to 0.02) and methadone (SMD: -0.84; 95%CI: -1.78 to 0.10). Meta-regression showed non-significant associations between the SMD in opioid withdrawal score with the duration and dose of tramadol therapy. There were no significant differences in treatment retention at the end of studies between tramadol and comparators. Safety data in the individual studies were inadequate to analyze. CONCLUSION: Authors conclude that the efficacy of tramadol in reducing opioid withdrawal symptoms is not significantly different from comparators with low certainty of evidence against placebo, moderate against methadone, whereas with high certainty of evidence against buprenorphine and clonidine.

Chemotherapy-induced hand foot syndrome: comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological prophylaxis - systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hand-foot syndrome (HFS) is one of the most common toxicities experienced by patients receiving systemic chemotherapy agents such as capecitabine and multikinase inhibitors such as sorafenib. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated the efficacy and safety of prophylactic agents such as pyridoxine, celecoxib, urea cream and cystine/theanine in managing HFS. This network meta-analysis (NMA) evaluated data from high-quality trials to provide strong evidence in forming recommendations to prevent systemic cancer therapy-induced HFS. OBJECTIVE: To examine the comparative efficacy and safety of interventions for preventing systemic chemotherapy-induced HFS in patients with cancer. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase and clinical trial registry for RCTs of interventions for preventing HFS. Bayesian NMA was performed to estimate the OR with 95% credible intervals (CrI) from both direct and indirect evidence. The outcome measures were the incidence of HFS (grade ≥1) and moderate to severe HFS (grade ≥2). Adverse drug reactions were discussed descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 15 RCTs with 2715 patients with 12 prophylactic strategies were included. The analysis showed only celecoxib could significantly prevent the incidence of moderate to severe HFS (grade ≥2) (OR 0.29, 95% CrI 0.13 to 0.68). But none of the preventive interventions could prevent the incidence of HFS (grade ≥1). CONCLUSION: Only celecoxib (200 mg two times per day) showed significant prevention of the incidence of moderate to severe HFS. Pyridoxine (400 mg once daily) and urea cream (10%) have to be evaluated further in larger randomised trials.