Managing Cardiovascular Risk of Macrolides: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: It was postulated that antibiotics including macrolides could be used for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease but recent studies showed that macrolides increase the cardiovascular risk. We aimed to review the evidence of cardiovascular risk associated with macrolides regarding duration of effect and risk factors; and to explore the potential effect of statins for the prevention of cardiovascular events as a result of macrolide use. METHODS: Several electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library) were searched to identify eligible studies. Observational studies and randomized controlled trials that investigated the association between macrolides and cardiovascular events in adults aged ≥18 years were included. A meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the short- and long-term risks of cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, and stroke. Methodological quality was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. The body of evidence was evaluated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation guidelines. RESULTS: Observational studies were found to have a short-term risk of cardiovascular outcomes including cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and arrhythmia associated with macrolides but no risk was found in randomized controlled trials. However, no association for long-term risk (ranging from >30 days to >3 years) was observed in observational studies or randomized controlled trials. LIMITATIONS: The included studies reported different units of denominators for absolute risk and used different outcome definitions, which might increase the heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: More studies are required to investigate the short-term cardiovascular outcomes associated with different types of macrolides. Future studies are warranted to evaluate the effect of statins for preventing excess acute cardiovascular events associated with clarithromycin or other macrolides.

Efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tofacitinib is a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) which was recently approved by US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). There are several randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that have investigated the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A systematic review with a meta-analysis of RCTs was undertaken to determine the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in treating patients with RA. METHODS: Electronic and clinical trials register databases were searched for published RCTs of tofacitinib between 2009 and 2013. Outcomes of interest include 20% and 50% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology Scale (ACR20 and ACR50) response rates, rates of infection, the number of immunological/haematological adverse events (AEs), deranged laboratory results (hepatic, renal, haematological tests and lipoprotein level) and the incidence of drug withdrawal. RESULTS: Eight RCTs (n = 3,791) were reviewed. Significantly greater ACR20 response rates were observed in patients receiving tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg bid (twice daily) versus placebo at week 12, with risk ratios (RR) of 2.20 (95% CI 1.58, 3.07) and 2.38 (95% CI 1.81, 3.14) respectively. The effect was maintained at week 24 for 5 mg bid (RR 1.94; 95% CI 1.55, 2.44) and 10 mg bid (RR 2.20; 95% CI 1.76, 2.75). The ACR50 response rate was also significantly higher for patients receiving tofacitinib 5 mg bid (RR 2.91; 95% CI 2.03, 4.16) and 10 mg bid (RR 3.32; 95% CI 2.33, 4.72) compared to placebo at week 12. Patients in the tofacitinib group had significantly lower mean neutrophil counts, higher serum creatinine, higher percentage change of LDL/HDL and a higher risk of ALT/AST > 1 ULN (upper limit of normal) versus placebo. There were no significant differences in AEs and withdrawal due to AEs compared to placebo. CONCLUSION: Tofacitinib is efficacious and well tolerated in patients with MTX-resistant RA up to a period of 24 weeks. However, haematological, liver function tests and lipoproteins should be monitored. Long-term efficacy and pharmacovigilance studies are recommended.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of perampanel in the treatment of partial-onset epilepsy.

INTRODUCTION: Perampanel is a first-in-class antiepileptic drug approved for adjunctive treatment of partial-onset seizure in patients aged 12 years or older. Published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) had small sample sizes, and meta-analyses have included too few studies to draw conclusive results for the assessment of tolerability, efficacy and safety of perampanel. There is a need to conduct a meta-analysis with a larger dataset and an appropriate study design. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically review the efficacy and safety of perampanel in the treatment of partial-onset epilepsy. METHODS: Electronic and clinical trials databases were searched for RCTs of perampanel published up to March 2013. Outcomes of interest were 50 % responder rates, seizure freedom, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and incidence of withdrawal. Meta-analysis was performed to investigate the outcomes of interest. RESULTS: Five RCTs with a total of 1,678 subjects were included. The 50 % responder rates were significantly greater in patients receiving 4, 8 and 12 mg perampanel versus placebo, with risk ratios of 1.54 (95 % CI 1.11-2.13), 1.80 (95 % CI 1.38-2.35) and 1.72 (95 % CI 1.17-2.52), respectively. There was no statistical evidence of a difference in seizure freedom between 8 or 12 mg perampanel and placebo. Of the five commonly reported TEAEs included, both dizziness and somnolence were statistically associated with 8 mg perampanel, whilst dizziness was statistically associated with 12 mg perampanel. Incidences of withdrawal due to adverse events were significantly higher in the 8 mg and 12 mg perampanel groups versus placebo. CONCLUSION: The use of perampanel resulted in a statistically significant reduction of seizure frequency with respect to the 50 % responder rate in patients with partial-onset epilepsy. Perampanel is well tolerated at 4 mg and reasonably tolerated at 8 and 12 mg. Further clinical and pharmacovigilance studies are required to investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of perampanel in the management of other types of epilepsy.