ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of four antiplatelet regimens after coronary drug-eluting stents by network meta-analysis.MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMbase and Web of Science databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the comparison of different antiplatelet regimens after coronary drug-eluting stenting from inception to December 31st, 2019. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed risk bias of included studies. Network meta-analysis was then performed by using Gemtc14.3 software, Stata16.0 software and RevMan5.3 software.ResultsA total of 23 RCTs involving 45 837 patients were included. The results of network meta-analysis showed that: in terms of prevention of myocardial infarction (MI) recurrence, the aspirin monotherapy after short-term dual antiplatelet therapy was inferior to the triple antiplatelet therapy (OR=2.13, 95%CI 1.08 to 4.03). In terms of reducing the incidence of ischemic compound events, the triple antiplatelet therapy was superior to the standard dual antiplatelet therapy (OR=0.53, 95%CI 0.39 to 0.72), the aspirin monotherapy after short-term dual antiplatelet therapy (OR=0.49, 95%CI 0.35 to 0.69) and the P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after short-term dual antiplatelet therapy (OR=0.51, 95%CI 0.35 to 0.73). There was no statistically significant difference among the four interventions in reducing the rate of in-stent thrombosis and all-cause mortality (P>0.05). In terms of safety, the bleeding rate of aspirin monotherapy after short-term dual antiplatelet therapy was lower than that of standard dual antiplatelet therapy (OR=0.70, 95%CI 0.55 to 0.86) and triple antiplatelet therapy (OR=0.58, 95%CI 0.36 to 0.90), and the bleeding rate of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after short-term dual antiplatelet therapy was also lower than that of standard dual antiplatelet therapy (OR=0.51, 95%CI 0.39 to 0.65) and triple antiplatelet therapy (OR=0.43, 95%CI 0.26 to 0.67). The probability ranking diagram showed that: in terms of the recurrence rate of MI, the rate of in-stent thrombosis and the incidence of ischemic compound events, triple antiplatelet therapy was the lowest and aspirin monotherapy after short-term dual antiplatelet therapy was the highest. However, in terms of all-cause mortality and bleeding rate, aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after short-term dual antiplatelet therapy was the lowest and triple antiplatelet therapy was the highest.ConclusionsThe available evidence suggests that when the risk of ischemia is low, we should choose aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after short-term dual antiplatelet therapy, and P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy may have a lower risk of ischemia and bleeding. When the risk of ischemia is high and bleeding is low, the triple or standard dual antiplatelet therapy should be selected, and the efficacy of triple antiplatelet therapy is superior, while the safety may be inferior.
Objective To assess the potential of ciprofloxacin to induce arthropathy in children and provide evidence for clinical practice. Methods We searched MEDLINE(1985- March 2006), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1,2006), EMBASE(1985 to March 2006) and CBMdisk(1990 to March 2006) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving the safety of ciprofloxacin in pediatrics. We assessed the methodological quality of the studies identified. RevMan 4.2 was used for meta-analysis. Results Seven RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Compared with the control group, the combined rate of arthralgia did not increase compared to ciprofloxacin. The relative risk was 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.48. No studies reported joint pathology and cartilage lesions on radiographic imaging, ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging in the pediatric population. Conclusion Based on the results of the review and the meta-analysis, there is no evidence that using ciprofloxacin in the pediatric population is associated with clinical arthropathy. Further well-designed clinical studies should be performed to assess the long-term consequences of the use of ciprofloxacin in children.
Objective To evaluate the safety and efficacy of steroid withdrawal in modern triple immunosuppressant (Cycloproine/Tacrolimus, Mycophenolate Mofetil and Steroid) on renal transplantation recipients. Methods We searched MEDLINE (1966-Sep. 2005), OVID (1966-2004), EMBASE (1984-2004), The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2005), CBMdisc (1994-2005), and handsearched 7 Chinese Journals. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) adopting modern triple immunosuppressant, and comparing steroid withdrawal (SW), group and steroid continuing group (SC) were selected. The quality of included studies was evaluated and graded according to Cochrane Reviewer’s Handbook 4.2.5, and meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 4.2.7 software. Results Nine RCTs including 1 681 patients (845 in SW and 836 in SC) were identified. The average follow-up time was 6-12 months. No significant difference was found in using CsA or Tac in modern triple immunosuppressant. The results of our meta-analysis showed: ① the risk of acute rejection was two times higher in SW than SC (RR 2.05, 95% CI 1.54 to 2.72, P lt;0.000 01), mainly Banff grade I (mild) (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.16 to 3.17, P =0.01); but no significant differences were found on Banff grade II and III between the two groups. ② the rate of graft and patient survival and chronic rejection were the same between two groups. ③ Steroid withdrawal decreased the incidence of opportunistic infection (mainly caused by simplex herpes virus and Candida) and urinary tract infection. While the incidence of CMV and sepsis infection has no significant difference between two groups. Conclusion Steroid withdrawal within 3 months in modern immunosuppressive regimen ① increases the risk of Banff Grade I rejection reaction, but the moderate and severe rejection are similar between the two groups; ② doesn’t affect the rate of graft, patient survival, and chronic rejection; ③ decreases the incidence of opportunistic and urinary tract infection, but doesn’t improve the CMV infection and sepsis. To prophylaxis serious infection, steroid withdrawal is worth considering under sufficient immunosuppressive regimen. The key point is to balance the benefit and harm for individual recipients.
Objective To evaluate the therapeutic effect and safety of Bupropion hydrochloride sustained-release tablets in the treatment of depression. Methods A total of 48 patients meeting the diagnostic criteria of depression of CCMD-3 were randomly treated with Bupropion hydrochloride sustained-release tablets or Fluoxetine tablets for 42 days. Hamilton depression rating scale, Hamilton anxiety rating scale, clinical global impression and treatment emergent symptom scale were used to evaluate the therapeutic effect. Blood routine test, urine routine test and electrocardiogram were examined before and after the treatment. Results The effective rate of Bupropion hydrochloride sustained-release tablets [83% (20/ 24) ] was higher than that of Fluoxetine tablets [63% (15/ 24)], with a P value of 0.104. The incidence of adverse reactions was 46% (11/24) in both groups. Conclusion The therapeutic effect of Bupropion hydrochloride sustained-release tablets on depression is similar to that of Fluoxetine tablets, with mild adverse reactions to both treatments.
This article aims to review the recall of refecoxib which increases the incidence of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases and to find the methods to solve problems in post marked monitoring of drug safety.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of knee joint stability training in treating patients with knee osteoarthritis.
MethodsSixty-one patients with knee osteoarthritis treated between April 2014 and April 2015 were randomly divided into 2 groups:rehabilitation group (n=30) and control group (n=31).Patients in the rehabilitation group received knee joint stability training (30-40 minutes once, once every day); the control group received diclofenac sodium orally at 75 mg/d (25 mg per time, 3 times every day).The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis index (WOMAC) and short-form health survey (SF-36) were used before and after treatment.Patients' and physicians' assessment of the total efficacy rate was also analyzed.
ResultsAfter 5 weeks of treatment, the total efficacy rate assessed by the patients for the rehabilitation group and the control group was respectively 93.33% and 87.10%, and those two numbers assessed by physicians were respectively 86.67% and 80.65%;the differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.05).Significant improvement was observed in the results of WOMAC and SF-36 in both two groups (P < 0.05).There was no significant difference in the clinical efficacy between the two groups (P > 0.05).No incidence of related adverse events occurred in the rehabilitation group, while the incidence of adverse events was 16.13% in the control group (P < 0.05).
ConclusionThe knee joint stability training is as effective as diclofenac sodium in treating patients with knee osteoarthritis, but the joint stability training is better tolerated than the latter.
We searched The Cochrane Library（Issue 3, 2005）, MEDLINE（1996-2005） ,CMCC（1996-2005）, VIP（1996-2005） ,CNKI（1996-2005） to summarize the available evidence of topiramate for an intractable epilepsy. After scanning all these articles, we identified 11 articles including meta-analysis, randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews to evaluate. Topiramate offered an alternative in the treament for intractable epilepsy, especially for partial epilepsy, and its efficacy was proven. Patients had good tolerance. And no intercross effects with the traditional anti-epileptic drugs were found. So topiramate had broad clinical value. The primary dosage of topiramate was 200mg/d. The sustaining dosage was 400-600mg/d. And we didn＇t recommend the dosage of more than 600mg/d.
Objective
To systematically review the safety of rifapentine vs. rifampicin for pulmonary tuberculosis.
Methods
PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, VIP, WanFang Data and CNKI databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of rifapentine vs. rifampicin for pulmonary tuberculosis up to September 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies, then, meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software.
Results
A total of 26 RCTs involving 3 624 cases were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that the rifapentine group was superior to the rifampicin group on the incidence of abnormal liver function (RR=0.31, 95%CI 0.32 to 0.47, P<0.000 01), skin rash occurrence rate (RR=0.24, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.37,P<0.000 01), the incidence of leukopenia (RR=0.41, 95%CI 0.31 to 0.54,P<0.000 01), and the incidence of gastrointestinal reaction (RR=0.46, 95%CI 0.37 to 0.57,P<0.000 01) with statistical significance.
Conclusions
Current evidence shows that compared with rifampicin, rifapentine can effectively reduce the adverse reactions of patients. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high quality studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.
Objectives To systematic review the safety of routine preoperative testings versus selectivepreoperative testings for cataract surgery. Methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials-Central (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) in the Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2008), MEDLINE (1966 to Oct. 2008), EMBASE (1980 to Oct. 2008), CMB-disk (1979 to Oct. 2008). We also hand-searched related journals. All the search was restricted in English and Chinese. Methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was evaluated by simple evaluate method that recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. Data extracted by two reviewers with designed extraction form. RevMan 5.0 software was used for data management and analysis. Obtained evidence the safety of routine preoperative testings versus selective preoperative testings.Result Four RCTs involving 20 490 participants required cataract surgery were included by total retrieve and riddling. The result of metaanalysis showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups in the rates of intraoperative systemic events [RR=1.05, 95%CI (0.89, 1.24), P=0.59], postoperative systemic events [RR=0.97, 95%CI (0.80, 1.18), P=0.77], intraoperative ocular events [RR=0.99, 95%CI (0.74, 1.33), P=0.97] and postoperative ocular events [RR=1.11, 95%CI (0.76, 1.60), P=0.59]. Conclusion To compare routine preoperative testings group with selective preoperative testings group, there was no significant difference in the rates of intraoperative systemic events, postoperative systemic events, intraoperative ocular events and postoperative ocular events. However the application of the results to the patients with incapacitating systemic diseases needs further study.
