Low-Dose Versus Standard-Dose Alteplase in Bridging Therapy for Large Vessel Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION The efficacy and safety of low- and standard-dose alteplase for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) have not been consistently compared in previous studies. Nevertheless, the distinctions in the effects of low- and standard-dose alteplase, particularly within the context of bridging therapy (BT) for large vessel occlusion (LVO), warrant further exploration. This study compared clinical outcomes between BT with low- and standard-dose alteplase in patients with LVO-related AIS. METHODS We performed a search for randomized controlled trials and prospective or retrospective cohort studies investigating the clinical outcomes of BT in AIS in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to November 2022. The outcomes of interest were 90-day functional independence, successful recanalization, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH) and mortality; these outcomes were compared between patients who received BT with low- (primarily 0.6 mg/kg) and standard-dose alteplase (0.9 mg/kg). We used the standard-dose group as the reference and calculated the odds ratio (OR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) from the raw numbers. Meta-analysis and ethnicity-based subgroup analysis (Asian and non-Asian) were performed. RESULTS Five observational studies, published after 2017 and including 408 patients, were included. The meta-analysis results demonstrated that compared with BT with standard-dose alteplase, BT with low-dose alteplase did not improve 90-day functional independence (odds ratio, [OR] 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-1.80). Nevertheless, BT with low-dose alteplase was associated with a comparable successful recanalization rate (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.68-2.67) and similar sICH incidence (OR 0.36; 95% CI, 0.10-1.36), and mortality (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.27-1.54) compared with BT with standard-dose alteplase; however, the above three results were nonsignificant. In the ethnicity-based subgroup analyses, no differences were noted between Asian and non-Asian participants. CONCLUSIONS In patients with LVO-related AIS, BT with low- or standard-dose alteplase may provide similar efficacy, with no significant differences in sICH incidence and mortality. Additional well-designed prospective studies are required to confirm this result.

Efficacy of AST-120 for Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

AST-120, an oral spherical activated carbon, may delay the need for kidney dialysis and improve uremia symptoms because it can adsorb acidic and basic organic compounds, especially small-molecule uremic toxins. However, previous studies produced no conclusive evidence regarding the benefits of AST-120 in delaying the progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD). Therefore, this systematic review and network meta-analysis evaluated the effects of AST-120 in patients with CKD. Related keywords of CKD and AST-120 were used to search four databases to obtain potential evidence on this topic, and two authors individually completed evidence selection, data extraction, and quality assessment. Network meta-analysis was performed for mortality, end-stage renal disease, composite renal outcomes, and laboratory outcomes based on a frequentist approach. In total, 15 randomized controlled trials (n = 3,763) were included in the present synthesis, and the pooled results revealed non-significant differences in mortality among the treatment strategies. Low- and high-dose AST-120 were not superior to no AST-120 treatment regarding renal outcomes. However, the event rates of end-stage renal disease (risk ratio [RR] = 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.62-0.99) and composite renal outcomes (RR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.63-0.97) were significantly lower in the tailored-dose AST-120 group than in no AST-120 group. The results did not reveal a small-study effect on the outcomes. Tailored dosing of AST-120 appeared to represent an optimal treatment strategy because it resulted in lower rates of composite renal outcomes and end-stage renal disease.

Small molecule inhibitors and biologics in treating nail psoriasis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Various systemic immunomodulating therapies have been investigated to treat nail psoriasis, but the efficacy remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of small molecule inhibitors and biologics in treating nail psoriasis. METHODS: Eligible studies in online databases were identified until March 10, 2020. To assess the efficacy of small molecule inhibitors and biologics, network meta-analyses with surface under the cumulative ranking curve of improvement in nail score at 10 to 16 and at 24 to 26 weeks, as well as 100% improvement of Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI), were performed. RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies with a total of 13 treatment arms involving 15,673 patients with nail psoriasis were included. An network meta-analysis showed that tofacitinib (weighted mean difference, 56.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 35.87-77.48) and ixekizumab (weighted mean difference, 59.40; 95% CI, 45.87-72.93) presented the most improvement of nail score at 10 to 16 weeks and 24 to 26 weeks, respectively. For 100% improvement of the Nail Psoriasis Severity Index, ixekizumab showed the best efficacy among all treatments (odds ratio, 2.98; 95% CI, 1.74-5.10). LIMITATIONS: Insufficiency of eligible data and no long-term follow-up data. CONCLUSION: Tofacitinib and ixekizumab presented the best efficacy for treating nail psoriasis in 10 to 16 weeks and 24 to 26 weeks, respectively.

Optimal treatment strategy of fremanezumab in migraine prevention: a systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Identifying the optimal fremanezumab treatment strategy is crucial in treating patients with migraines. The optimal strategy was investigated by assessing the cumulative 50% reduction rate (50%CRR), cumulative 75% reduction rate (75%CRR), reduction in the number of migraine days, treatment-related adverse events, and serious adverse events in patients treated with fremanezumab 225 mg monthly (225 mg), 675 mg monthly (675 mg), 900 mg monthly (900 mg), a single high dose of 675 mg (S675mg), 675 mg at baseline with 225 mg monthly (675/225 mg), and placebo. Biomedical databases were searched for randomized controlled trials on this topic, and data were individually extracted. Risk ratios and mean differences were used to present the pooled results. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to determine the effects of the medication strategies of fremanezumab. Five trials (n = 3404) were used to form a six-node network meta-analysis. All fremanezumab medication strategies displayed significantly higher cumulative 50% reduction rates than the placebo. The SUCRA revealed that treatment with 675 mg yielded the highest 50%CRR value (mean rank = 2.5). S675 mg was the only treatment with significantly higher 75%CRR reduction rate than placebo, whereas the SUCRA for 225 mg displayed the highest mean rank (2.2). Moreover, 225 mg (mean rank = 2.2) and S675 mg (mean rank = 2.2) presented lower probabilities of serious adverse events. Collectively, S675mg and 225 mg exhibited the optimal balance between efficacy and safety within three months. Long-term efficacy and safety remain unclear, and future studies should further evaluate the long-term outcomes.

Current Impact and Application of Abuse-Deterrent Opioid Formulations in Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND: Abuse-deterrent formulations (ADFs) represent one novel strategy for curbing the potential of opioid abuse. OBJECTIVE: We aim to compare and contrast the characteristics and applications of current abuse-deterrent opioid products in clinical practice. METHODS: Literature searches were conducted in databases (Pubmed Medline, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Google Scholar) and official reports. Relevant data were screened and organized into: 1) epidemiology of opioid abuse, 2) mitigation strategies for reducing opioid abuse, 3) development of ADFs, and 4) clinical experience with these formulations. RESULTS: Increasing trends of opioid abuse and misuse have been reported globally. There are 5 types of abuse-deterrent opioid products: physical chemical barrier, combined agonist/antagonist, sequestered aversive agent, prodrug, and novel delivery system. The advantages and disadvantages of the 5 options are discussed in this review. A total of 9 products with abuse-deterrent labels have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The rates of abuse, diversion, and overdose deaths of these new products are also discussed. A framework for collecting in-time data on the efficacy, benefit and risk ratio, and cost-effectiveness of these new products is suggested to facilitate their optimal use. LIMITATIONS: The present review did not utilize systematic review standards or meta-analytic techniques, given the large heterogeneity of data and outcomes reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: ADFs provide an option for inhibiting the abuse or misuse of oral opioid products by hindering extraction of the active ingredient, preventing alternative routes of administration, or causing aversion. Their relatively high costs, uncertain insurance policies, and limited data on pharmacoeconomics warrant collaborative monitoring and assessment by government agencies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and data analysis services to define their therapeutic role in the future. KEY WORDS: Opioid abuse, abuse-deterrent formulations, ADF, post-marketing, FDA guidance, cost impact, abuse liking, physician attitude, generic abuse-deterrent formulation, clinical application.