Evaluating the safety and efficacy of zuranolone in the management of major depressive disorder and postpartum depression, with or without concurrent insomnia: a rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis

IntroductionMajor depressive disorder (MDD), postpartum depression (PPD), and insomnia are neuropsychological conditions in which zuranolone is used to improve symptoms and prognosis of the disorder. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy of zuranolone in comparison to other drugs used for treating these conditions.MethodsThis meta-analysis included patients aged between 18 and 75 years who were diagnosed with major depressive disorder and postpartum depression with or without insomnia and were administered zuranolone for treatment. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included, and animal studies were excluded. The databases used were PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Clinicaltrials.gov, with MeSH terms and relevant keywords for (Zuranolone) and (Depression). The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used for quality assessment.ResultsThe meta-analysis included eight RCTs that analyzed data from 2031 patients. The meta-analysis revealed statistically significant changes in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A), and treatment-emergent adverse effects (TEAE) scores in the PPD subgroup. HAM-D and TEAEs scores were also significant in the MDD subgroup, but the changes in the MADRS, HAM-A, and Bech-6 scores were insignificant. Serious adverse events were insignificant in all subgroups.ConclusionMeta-analysis found a significant improvement in depressive symptoms with zuranolone treatment, especially on day 15. This suggests that zuranolone is a promising therapeutic option for patients with MDD and PPD with or without insomnia.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=459554, identifier CRD42023459554

Safety and efficacy of antithrombotics in outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is a global health emergency, with well over six hundred million infections and over six million deaths to date. Besides other ramifications, it is also associated with inflammation and an augmented risk of thromboembolic complications. Despite this, the risks and benefits of antithrombotic drugs in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 have not been well-established and remain controversial.Objectives: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of antithrombotic drugs on mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 patients by performing an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods: We queried electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Central, Scopus, and Embase) from their inception up to September 2022 for randomized controlled trials comparing antithrombotic drugs against placebo. The outcomes of interest were the need for hospital care, mortality, and thromboembolic events in the enrolled participants. Dichotomous outcomes were presented as risk ratio (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) and were consolidated using random-effects model.Main results: Five eligible studies (Rivaroxaban/Apixaban, two; enoxaparin, two; Sulodexide, one), consisting of 2,005 participants with mild to moderate COVID-19, were included. Pooled results show that antithrombotics, when compared to placebo, do not significantly reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.51, 95 % CI 0.15-1.68; P = 0.27; I2 = 0), thromboembolic events (RR 0.78, 95 % CI 0.17-3.51; P = 0.74; I2 = 0), need for hospitalization (RR 0.73, 95 % CI 0.51-1.03; P = 0.08; I2 = 0), nor significantly increase clinically relevant non-major bleeding events (RR 2.36, 95 % CI 0.56-9.89; P = 0.24; I2 = 0). However, when Sulodexide was compared independently to other antithrombotics, it significantly reduced the need for hospitalization (RR 0.60, 95 % CI 0.37-0.95; P = 0.03).Conclusions: Our pooled analysis was not able to establish statistically significant benefits or risks of using antithrombotic drugs in mild to moderate COVID-19 patients. To further improve our understanding of the efficacy, safety and risk profile of such a therapy, large sample randomized clinical trials are required on a wide scale

DataSheet_1_Meta-analysis of Molteno glaucoma implants and Ahmed glaucoma valves: insights into efficacy and safety for complex glaucoma.pdf

BackgroundGlaucoma is a leading cause of irreversible blindness globally and for decades, Molteno and Ahmed glaucoma implants, operating on different mechanisms, have been used to treat complicated glaucoma with varying success.ObjectiveTo assess the safety and efficacy of the Molteno glaucoma implant (MGI) versus the Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) in patients with complicated glaucoma.MethodsWe comprehensively searched PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library and Science Direct) from inception till July 2023 and studies comparing patients with MGI and those with AGV in patients with complicated glaucoma. The primary outcome was intra-ocular pressure reduction at different time intervals. Secondary outcomes included surgical success rate, hypertensive phase, anti-glaucoma medication (AGM) and total complications. ResultsIn this meta-analysis, four studies were included with a patient population of 257 with refractory, neovascular or advanced uncontrolled glaucoma. Postoperative intra-ocular pressure reduction did not show significant difference between the two groups (MD: -1.34, 95% CI [-2.78, 0.09]). From the secondary outcomes, surgical success rate (RR: 0.88, 95% CI [0.51,1.53]), hypertensive phase (RR: 0.74, 95% CI [0.39,1.40]) were insignificant. Postoperative anti-glaucoma medication (MD: -0.07, 95% CI [-0.79, -0.65] and total complications (RR:1.36, 95% CI [1.07, 1.72]) were significant. ConclusionNo significant difference was observed between the patients with MGI and AGV for the primary outcome. From the secondary outcome, AGV was associated with reduced anti-glaucoma medication use and significantly lowered the number of complications.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=475539, identifier CRD42023475539.</p