ABSTRACT
The present meta-analysis aimed to assess the impact of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in preventing the relapse and recurrence of depression in adults with major depressive disorders. The study was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Two authors conducted a systematic search of online databases, such as PubMed, PsycINFO, and EMBASE, using keywords, such as "electroconvulsive therapy," "depressive disorders," and "recurrence." The primary outcome measure was the incidence of relapse and recurrence in adults with major depressive disorder who received ECT alone or in combination with an antidepressant medication compared to those who received antidepressant medication alone. The secondary outcome measure was the change in the Mini-Mental State Examination score from baseline to the end of the trial in both groups. A total of six articles were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled rate of recurrence in the ECT group was 28.4% compared to 30.6% in the antidepressant group, with no significant difference between the two groups (risk ratio (RR) = 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.65-1.10, p = 0.21). However, subgroup analysis showed that the risk of recurrence was significantly lower in patients receiving ECT with antidepressant therapy compared to the antidepressant group alone (RR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.45-0.93, p = 0.02). On the other hand, when ECT was given alone, the risk was higher in the ECT group compared to the antidepressant group; however, the difference was not statistically significant (RR = 1.17, 95% CI = 0.79-1.75). In conclusion, the results of this meta-analysis suggest that ECT alone or in combination with an antidepressant medication does not significantly impact the incidence of recurrence in adults with major depressive disorder when compared to antidepressant medication alone.
ABSTRACT
We intended to summarize the most recent research pertaining to the use of phosphodiesterase-5 (PDE5) inhibitors in pulmonary hypertension in light of recent developments in the knowledge of the pathophysiological mechanisms and treatments for pulmonary hypertension, with major contributions in the area in the last decade. The aim of this meta-analysis is to determine the efficacy of PDE5 inhibitors for pulmonary hypertension in adults. We followed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to carry out this meta-analysis. Online database searching to identify eligible trials was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library by two authors independently. Outcomes assessed in the current meta-analysis included change in the cardiac index from baseline in liters per minute per square meter (L/min/m2), mean peripheral arterial pressure (PAP) in mm Hg, mortality, hospitalization, and six-minute walking distance (6MWD) in meters (m). Overall, 17 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the current meta-analysis. PDE5 inhibitors significantly improve cardiac index (mean difference: 0.18, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.32, p-value: 0.01), mean PAP (mean difference: -5.61, 95% CI: -7.60, -3.62, p-value: 0.01), and 6MWD (mean difference: 26.26, 95% CI: 16.95, 35.57, p-value: 0.001) as compared to the patients in the control group. No significant difference was found in terms of risk of mortality (risk ratio (RR): 0.51, 95% CI: 0.17, 1.54) and risk of hospitalization (RR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.23, 1.55) between the two groups. The current meta-analysis concluded that PDE5 inhibitors improve 6MWD, mean PAP, and cardiac index in patients with pulmonary hypertension. However, no significant difference was reported in terms of mortality and hospitalization between the two groups.
ABSTRACT
This meta-analysis was conducted with the aim to assess the safety and efficacy of favipiravir in treating patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It was carried out in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We performed a thorough search of online databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from their inceptions to November 30, 2022, using the following search terms: "Favipiravir" AND "COVID-19". We included randomized control trials (RCTs) that were conducted to determine the efficacy and safety of favipiravir for COVID-19. Efficacy outcomes assessed in this meta-analysis included time to viral clearance in days, time to clinical improvement in days, need for supplementary oxygen, and requirement of ICU admission. For safety outcomes, we compared overall adverse events and serious adverse events that had occurred during the treatment between the patients in the treatment group and the control group. Eight studies involving 1,448 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The results showed that no significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of time to viral clearance, time to clinical improvement, and the need for supplementary oxygen and ICU admission. In terms of safety, no significant differences were found between the two groups in relation to adverse events and serious adverse events. The current study found that favipiravir did not exert any beneficial impact on reducing ICU admission, the need for oxygen therapy, and time to viral clearance. However, a slight benefit was reported with regard to the time for clinical improvement, but it was insignificant between the two study groups.