Trustworthy evidence-based versus untrustworthy guidelines: detecting the difference.

Guidelines are essential tools in healthcare decision-making. Trustworthy guidelines inform clinicians not only on the direction (against or in favour) and strength (strong or weak/conditional) of recommendations but also on the certainty of the underlying evidence. Developing trustworthy guidelines requires panellists with clinical and methodological expertise who consider patients' values and preferences. Adherence to trustworthiness standards remains variable; clinicians should, therefore, be able to distinguish trustworthy from untrustworthy guidelines. In this paper, we offer eight domains of disparities between trustworthy evidence-based guidelines and less trustworthy guidelines.

Certainty of evidence, why?

Optimal clinical decision-making requires understanding of evidence regarding benefits, harms, and burdens of alternative management options. Rigorously conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses offer accurate summaries of the evidence. However, such summaries may review only low-certainty evidence, in the process highlighting that no single decision is likely to be best for all patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach offers a systematic and transparent method for rating certainty of evidence in systematic reviews. In this paper, we will address the importance of assessing the certainty associated with bodies of evidence; explain how the GRADE system rates the certainty of evidence from systematic reviews; and present the GRADE evidence to decision framework for moving from evidence to strong or weak recommendations in clinical practice guidelines.

Certainty of evidence, why? / Certeza das evidências, por quê?

ABSTRACT Optimal clinical decision-making requires understanding of evidence regarding benefits, harms, and burdens of alternative management options. Rigorously conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses offer accurate summaries of the evidence. However, such summaries may review only low-certainty evidence, in the process highlighting that no single decision is likely to be best for all patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach offers a systematic and transparent method for rating certainty of evidence in systematic reviews. In this paper, we will address the importance of assessing the certainty associated with bodies of evidence; explain how the GRADE system rates the certainty of evidence from systematic reviews; and present the GRADE evidence to decision framework for moving from evidence to strong or weak recommendations in clinical practice guidelines.

RESUMO Para tomar a melhor decisão clínica, é preciso compreender as evidências a respeito dos benefícios, malefícios e ônus das alternativas de manejo. Revisões sistemáticas e meta-análises que sejam realizadas com rigor oferecem resumos precisos das evidências. No entanto, é possível que esses resumos avaliem apenas as evidências cujo grau de certeza é baixo e, ao fazê-lo, ressaltem que provavelmente não existe uma decisão única que será a melhor para todos os pacientes. O Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) é um método sistemático e transparente para avaliar o grau de certeza das evidências em revisões sistemáticas. Neste artigo, abordaremos a importância de avaliar o grau de certeza das evidências; explicaremos como o sistema GRADE classifica o grau de certeza das evidências provenientes de revisões sistemáticas e apresentaremos o evidence to decision framework (quadro para a avaliação de evidências) do GRADE para decidir se as evidências se traduzem em recomendações fortes ou fracas nas diretrizes de prática clínica.

A look back at the first wave of COVID-19 in China: A systematic review and meta-analysis of mortality and health care resource use among severe or critical patients.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the mortality and health care resource use among patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) in the first wave of pandemic in China. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the mortality, discharge rate, length of hospital stay, and use of invasive ventilation in severe or critical COVID-19 cases in China. We searched electronic databases for studies from China with no restrictions on language or interventions patients received. We screened records, extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies in duplicate. We performed the meta-analysis using random-effect models through a Bayesian framework. Subgroup analyses were conducted to examine studies by disease severity, study location and patient enrolment start date. We also performed sensitivity analysis using various priors, and assessed between-study heterogeneity and publication bias for the primary outcomes. RESULTS: Out of 6,205 titles and abstracts screened, 500 were reviewed in full text. A total of 42 studies were included in the review, of which 95% were observational studies (n = 40). The pooled 28-day and 14-day mortalities among severe or critical patients were 20.48% (7,136 patients, 95% credible interval (CrI), 13.11 to 30.70) and 10.83% (95% CrI, 6.78 to 16.75), respectively. The mortality declined over time and was higher in patients with critical disease than severe cases (1,235 patients, 45.73%, 95% CrI, 22.79 to 73.52 vs. 3,969 patients, 14.90%, 95% CrI, 4.70 to 39.57) and patients in Hubei compared to those outside Hubei (6,719 patients, 26.62%, 95% CrI, 13.11 to 30.70 vs. 244 patients, 5.88%, 95% CrI 2.03 to 14.11). The length of hospital stay was estimated at 18.48 days (6,847 patients, 95% CrI, 17.59 to 21.21), the 28-day discharge rate was 50.48% (3,645 patients, 95% CrI, 26.47 to 79.53), and the use of invasive ventilation rate was 13.46% (4,108 patients, 95% CrI, 7.61 to 22.31). CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review and meta-analysis found high mortality among severe and critical COVID-19 cases. Severe or critical COVID-19 cases consumed a large amount of hospital resources during the outbreak.

The Effects of Different Types of Steroids on Clinical Outcomes in Neonates with Meconium Aspiration Syndrome: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and GRADE Assessment.

Background and Objectives: Meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS) is a condition caused by the aspiration of meconium-stainted amniotic fluid into the lungs, resulting in pulmonary inflammation, neonatal morbidity, and mortality. It is important that these MAS infants receive appropriate care to avoid further complications. Steroids have an anti-inflammatory effect and may be effective in the management of MAS. The objective of the this study was to evaluate the effect of different steroids on clinical outcomes in infants with MAS. Materials and Methods: We systematically searched of PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, Clinical Trials.gov, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to 24 January 2021 without language restriction. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of steroids in neonates with MAS were included. We calculated relative risks and weighted mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model to determine the associations between MAS and steroids and GRADE approach was employed for quality of evidence. The main outcomes measures were duration of respiratory distress, oxygen requirement, hospitalization, need for mechanical ventilation, death, and adverse drug reactions. Results: Seven RCTs involving 397 patients were analyzed. Nebulized budesonide and intravenous (IV) methylprednisolone shortened the duration of respiratory distress (MD, -2.46 days; 95% CI, -3.09 to -1.83 and MD, -3.30 days; 95% CI, -4.07 to -2.52, respectively) (moderate certainty). There was a reduction in duration of oxygen requirement in nebulized budesonide use (MD, -2.40 days; 95% CI, -3.40 to -1.40) (low certainty) and IV methylprednisolone use (MD, -3.30 days; 95% CI, -4.07 to -2.52) (moderate certainty). Nebulized budesonide shortened hospitalization stay (MD, -4.47 days; 95% CI, -8.64 to -0.30 days) (low certainty) as IV methylprednisolone use (MD, -7.23 days; 95% CI, -8.19 to -6.07 days) (moderate certainty). None of steroids benefits in death (low certainty). Conclusions: Certain types of steroids may benefit the respiratory aspect, but there was no decrease in mortality in MAS infants.

Comparing Renal Replacement Therapy Modalities in Critically Ill Patients With Acute Kidney Injury: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare different modalities of renal replacement therapy in critically ill adults with acute kidney injury. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 25 May, 2020. We included randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of different renal replacement therapy modalities in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. STUDY SELECTION: Ten reviewers (working in pairs) independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. DATA EXTRACTION: We performed random-effects frequentist network meta-analyses and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess certainty of evidence. The primary analysis was a four-node analysis: continuous renal replacement therapy, intermittent hemodialysis, slow efficiency extended dialysis, and peritoneal dialysis. The secondary analysis subdivided these four nodes into nine nodes including continuous veno-venous hemofiltration, continuous veno-venous hemodialysis, continuous veno-venous hemodiafiltration, continuous arterio-venous hemodiafiltration, intermittent hemodialysis, intermittent hemodialysis with hemofiltration, slow efficiency extended dialysis, slow efficiency extended dialysis with hemofiltration, and peritoneal dialysis. We set the minimal important difference threshold for mortality as 2.5% (relative difference, 0.04). DATA SYNTHESIS: Thirty randomized controlled trials (n = 3,774 patients) proved eligible. There may be no difference in mortality between continuous renal replacement therapy and intermittent hemodialysis (relative risk, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.93-1.18; low certainty), whereas continuous renal replacement therapy demonstrated a possible increase in mortality compared with slow efficiency extended dialysis (relative risk, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.85-1.33; low certainty) and peritoneal dialysis (relative risk, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.92-1.49; low certainty). Continuous renal replacement therapy may increase renal recovery compared with intermittent hemodialysis (relative risk, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.91-1.45; low certainty), whereas both continuous renal replacement therapy and intermittent hemodialysis may be worse for renal recovery compared with slow efficiency extended dialysis and peritoneal dialysis (low certainty). Peritoneal dialysis was probably associated with the shortest duration of renal support and length of ICU stay compared with other interventions (low certainty for most comparisons). Slow efficiency extended dialysis may be associated with shortest length of hospital stay (low or moderate certainty for all comparisons) and days of mechanical ventilation (low certainty for all comparisons) compared with other interventions. There was no difference between continuous renal replacement therapy and intermittent hemodialysis in terms of hypotension (relative risk, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.72-1.16; moderate certainty) or other complications of therapy, but an increased risk of hypotension and bleeding was seen with both modalities compared with peritoneal dialysis (low or moderate certainty). Complications of slow efficiency extended dialysis were not sufficiently reported to inform comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this network meta-analysis suggest there is no difference in mortality between continuous renal replacement therapy and intermittent hemodialysis although continuous renal replacement therapy may increases renal recovery compared with intermittent hemodialysis. Slow efficiency extended dialysis with hemofiltration may be the most effective intervention at reducing mortality. Peritoneal dialysis is associated with good efficacy, and the least number of complications however may not be practical in all settings. Importantly, all conclusions are based on very low to moderate certainty evidence, limited by imprecision. At the very least, ICU clinicians should feel comfortable that the differences between continuous renal replacement therapy, intermittent hemodialysis, slow efficiency extended dialysis, and, where clinically appropriate, peritoneal dialysis are likely small, and any of these modalities is a reasonable option to employ in critically ill patients.

Outcomes of endotracheal suctioning in non-vigorous neonates born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically review and analyse the outcomes of non-endotracheal suctioning (non-ETS) versus ETS in non-vigorous meconium-stained neonates. DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review of non-ETS and ETS in non-vigorous infants born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid (MSAF). We searched PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Clinical Trials.gov, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to November 2019, using keywords and related terms. Only non-vigorous infants born through MSAF included in randomised controlled trials, were included. We calculated overall relative risks (RRs) and mean differences with 95% CIs using a random-effects model, to determine the impact of ETS in non-vigorous infants born through MSAF. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the incidence of meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS). Secondary outcomes were respiratory outcome measures (pneumothorax, persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn, secondary pneumonia, need for respiratory support, duration of mechanical ventilation), initial resuscitation and others including shock, perinatal asphyxia, convulsions, neonatal mortality, blood culture-positive sepsis and duration of hospital stay. RESULTS: A total of 2085 articles were identified in the initial database search. Four studies, including 581 non-vigorous meconium-stained infants, fulfilled the inclusion criteria, comprising 292 infants in the non-ETS group and 289 in the ETS group. No statistically significant difference was found for MAS (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.35). CONCLUSIONS: Initiating ETS soon after birth in non-vigorous meconium-stained infants may not alter their neonatal outcomes.

Efficacité et innocuité des corticostéroïdes dans le traitement de la COVID-19 selon des données pour la COVID-19, d'autres infections aux coronavirus, l'influenza, la pneumonie extrahospitalière et le syndrome de détresse respiratoire aiguë : revue systématique et méta-analyse.

CONTEXTE: Il existe très peu de données directes sur l'administration de corticostéroïdes aux patients atteints de la maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). Les données indirectes sur des maladies associées devront donc guider les conclusions quant aux bénéfices et aux préjudices associés à cette pratique. Dans le but d'appuyer la rédaction d'une ligne directrice sur la prise en charge de la COVID-19, nous avons réalisé des revues systématiques sur les effets des corticostéroïdes dans le traitement de la COVID-19 et de maladies respiratoires aiguës sévères associées. MÉTHODES: Dans des bases de données biomédicales chinoises et internationales et des sources de prépublications, nous avons cherché les essais randomisés et contrôlés (ERC) et les études d'observation comparant des patients atteints de la COVID-19, du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère (SRAS) ou du syndrome respiratoire du Moyen-Orient (SRMO) ayant reçu des corticostéroïdes à des patients semblables n'ayant pas reçu ce type de médicaments. Pour le syndrome de détresse respiratoire aiguë (SDRA), l'influenza et la pneumonie extrahospitalière (PEH), nous avons mis à jour les revues systématiques rigoureuses les plus récentes. Nous avons réalisé des méta-analyses à effets aléatoires pour cerner les risques relatifs, puis nous avons utilisé le risque de référence des patients atteints de la COVID-19 pour calculer les effets absolus. RÉSULTATS: Pour le SDRA, selon 1 petite étude de cohorte sur des patients atteints de la COVID-19 et 7 ERC sur des patients atteints d'une autre maladie (risque relatif : 0,72, intervalle de confiance [IC] de 95 % 0,55­0,93, différence entre les moyennes [DM] 17,3 % plus faible, données de faible qualité), les corticostéroïdes pourraient réduire le risque de mortalité. Chez les patients atteints d'une forme grave de COVID-19 sans SDRA, 2 études d'observation ont généré des données directes de très faible qualité montrant une augmentation du risque de mortalité avec l'administration de corticostéroïdes (rapport de risques 2,30, IC de 95 % 1,00­5,29, DM 11,9 % plus élevé). C'est aussi le cas de données observationnelles sur l'influenza. Des données observationnelles de très faible qualité sur le SRAS et le SRMO montrent peu ou pas de réduction dans le risque de mortalité. Des essais randomisés et contrôlés sur la PEH suggèrent que les corticostéroïdes pourraient réduire le risque de mortalité (risque relatif 0,70, IC de 95 % 0,50­0,98, DM 3,1 % plus faible, données de très faible qualité), et augmenter le risque d'hyperglycémie. INTERPRÉTATION: Les corticostéroïdes pourraient réduire le risque de mortalité pour les patients atteints de la COVID-19 avec SDRA. Pour les patients atteints d'une forme grave de COVID-19 sans SDRA, les données sur les bénéfices provenant de différentes sources sont incohérentes et de très faible qualité.

HLA genotypes and cold medicine-induced Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis with severe ocular complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Serious cutaneous adverse drug reactions [i.e., SJS/TEN with severe ocular complications (SOC)] associated with cold medicine (CM) were reported in several studies. To assess the risks of CM-induced SJS/TEN with SOC, systematic review and meta-analysis were employed. Studies investigating associations between HLA genotypes and CM-induced SJS/TEN with SOC were systematically searched in PubMed, Scopus and the Cochrane Library. Overall odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs were calculated using a random-effects model to determine these associations. An initial search of the databases identified 24,011 articles, of which 6 studies met the inclusion criteria. In total from all studies, associations between 81 different HLA genotypes and CM-induced SJS/TEN with SOC (i.e., 22 different HLA-A genotypes, 40 different HLA-B genotypes and 19 different HLA-C genotypes) were investigated. Risk factors to develop SJS/TEN with SOC in patients who used CM were identified from our meta-analysis. HLA-A*0206 (OR = 3.90; 95% CI = 1.96-7.77), HLA-A*3303 (OR = 2.28; 95% CI = 1.31-3.97), HLA-B*4403 (OR = 3.27; 95% CI = 1.52-7.03) and HLA-C*0501 (OR = 2.55; 95% CI = 1.19-5.44) were associated with CM-induced SJS/TEN with SOC. With our results demonstrating a significant association between using of CMs and the severe ADR, a genetic testing can be helpful. However, the CMs are commonly used as an over-the-counter drug in practically almost of people in populations worldwide, the genetic screening prior to use of the CMs might not be cost-effective. Nonetheless, for people with a family history of developing the ADRs with a possible involvement of CMs, a genetic screening may be beneficial.

Efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in COVID-19 based on evidence for COVID-19, other coronavirus infections, influenza, community-acquired pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Very little direct evidence exists on use of corticosteroids in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Indirect evidence from related conditions must therefore inform inferences regarding benefits and harms. To support a guideline for managing COVID-19, we conducted systematic reviews examining the impact of corticosteroids in COVID-19 and related severe acute respiratory illnesses. METHODS: We searched standard international and Chinese biomedical literature databases and prepublication sources for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing corticosteroids versus no corticosteroids in patients with COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). For acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), influenza and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), we updated the most recent rigorous systematic review. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses to pool relative risks and then used baseline risk in patients with COVID-19 to generate absolute effects. RESULTS: In ARDS, according to 1 small cohort study in patients with COVID-19 and 7 RCTs in non-COVID-19 populations (risk ratio [RR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55 to 0.93, mean difference 17.3% fewer; low-quality evidence), corticosteroids may reduce mortality. In patients with severe COVID-19 but without ARDS, direct evidence from 2 observational studies provided very low-quality evidence of an increase in mortality with corticosteroids (hazard ratio [HR] 2.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 5.29, mean difference 11.9% more), as did observational data from influenza studies. Observational data from SARS and MERS studies provided very low-quality evidence of a small or no reduction in mortality. Randomized controlled trials in CAP suggest that corticosteroids may reduce mortality (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.98, 3.1% lower; very low-quality evidence), and may increase hyperglycemia. INTERPRETATION: Corticosteroids may reduce mortality for patients with COVID-19 and ARDS. For patients with severe COVID-19 but without ARDS, evidence regarding benefit from different bodies of evidence is inconsistent and of very low quality.

HLA-DRB1*07:01 and lapatinib-induced hepatotoxicity: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Associations between HLA-DRB1*07:01 and lapatinib-induced hepatotoxicity have been reported. To consolidate the results from all available reports in scientific databases, systematic review and meta-analysis techniques were used to quantify these associations. Studies investigating associations between HLA-DRB1*07:01 and lapatinib-induced hepatotoxicity were systematically searched in PubMed, Human Genome Epidemiology Network, and the Cochrane Library. Primary outcomes were the associations between HLA-DRB1*07:01 and lapatinib-induced hepatotoxicity. Overall odds ratios (ORs) with the corresponding 95%CIs were calculated using a random-effect model to determine the associations between HLA-DRB1*07:01 and lapatinib-induced hepatotoxicity. A clear association between HLA-DRB1*07:01 and lapatinib-induced hepatotoxicity was identified in our analyses. The summary OR was 6.23 (95%CI = 4.11-9.45). Similar associations were also found in the subgroup analyses by lapatinib treatment regimens. ORs were 10.04 (95%CI = 6.15-16.39), 8.65 (95%CI = 4.52-16.58), and 3.88 (95%CI = 2.20-6.82) in the lapatinib group, lapatinib + trastuzumab group, and lapatinib + chemotherapy or lapatinib + trastuzumab + chemotherapy group, respectively. Since HLA-DRB1*07:01 is associated with lapatinib-induced hepatotoxicity, genetic screening of HLA-DRB1*07:01 in breast cancer patients prior to lapatinib therapy is warranted for patient safety. In addition, further studies should define the risk of HLA-DRB1*07:01 and lapatinib-induced hepatotoxicity in specific ethnicities.

Pharmacokinetics of mitragynine, a major analgesic alkaloid in kratom (Mitragyna speciosa): A systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Kratom (Mitragyna speciosa) is a tropical tree found in southern Thailand and northern states of the Malay Peninsula. Kratom is commercially available and used as an alternative to treat opioid withdrawal. Mitragynine is the major indole alkaloid found in kratom leaves. This review aimed to summarize available pharmacokinetic information about mitragynine. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically searched from their inceptions to June 2018. All types of pharmacokinetic studies of mitragynine were included for further systematic review. RESULTS: Seventeen articles were reviewed. Mitragynine is a lipophilic weak base passively transported across the intestinal wall and blood brain barrier. 85-95% is bound to plasma protein and extensively metabolized by phase I and particularly phase II enzymes. Actions on CYP enzymes are unlikely to impact drug metabolism at concentrations likely to exist in kratom-consuming humans. In rats and humans, mitragynine is rapidly absorbed after orally administration (Tmax˜1.5 h, Cmax˜0.3-1.8 µM). Vd was 37-90 L/kg; t1/2 was 3-9 hr; mostly excreted as metabolites in urine. Bioavailability was estimated as 21%. It also rapidly penetrated and redistributed in brain. A quality assessment tool tailored for pharmacokinetic studies was also created which rated some studies of lower value. CONCLUSION: Rudimentary pharmacokinetics of mitragynine was described in this systematic review. However, the discovered studies provided scant information on the role of metabolism and redistribution into tissues nor the rate of excretion.

Paraquat exposure and Parkinson's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

To reconcile and unify available results regarding paraquat exposure and Parkinson's disease (PD), we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide a quantitative estimate of the risk of PD associated with paraquat exposure. Six scientific databases including PubMed, Cochrane libraries, EMBASE, Scopus, ISI Web of Knowledge, and TOXLINE were systematically searched. The overall odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% CIs were calculated using a random-effects model. Of 7,309 articles identified, 13 case control studies with 3,231 patients and 4,901 controls were included into our analysis. Whereas, one prospective cohort studies was included into our systematic review. A subsequent meta-analysis showed an association between PD and paraquat exposure (odds ratio = 1.64 (95% CI: 1.27-2.13; I2 = 24.8%). There is a statistically significant association between paraquat exposure and PD. Thus, future studies regarding paraquat and Parkinson's disease are warranted.

Association between HLA-B*5901 and methazolamide-induced Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methazolamide-induced Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN) are life-threatening adverse drug reactions. Based on previous studies, HLA genotypes may play an important role in methazolamide-induced SJS/TEN. Therefore, to identify the associations between HLA genotypes and methazolamide-induced cutaneous adverse drug reactions (cADRs) (i.e., SJS/TEN and hypersensitivity syndrome), a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. Two studies (one study in Korean and another in Han Chinese) met the inclusion criteria. The studies included 13 patients with methazolamide-induced SJS/TEN, 30 methazolamide-tolerant, and 768 population controls. Associations between HLA-B*5901, HLA-B*5901-Cw*0102 haplotype, and methazolamide-induced SJS/TEN were identified in methazolamide-tolerant and population controls. Overall ORs were 305.0 (95% CI = 11.3-8, 259.4) in methazolamide-tolerant and 715.3 (95% CI = 83.1-6,158.5) in population control. In addition, statistically significant associations between the HLA-Cw*0102 and methazolamide-induced SJS/TEN were found in methazolamide-tolerant (OR = 12.1; 95% CI = 1.3-111.7) and population control (OR = 17.5; 95% CI = 3.2-96.6). Since HLA-B*5901 and HLA-B*5901-Cw*0102 haplotype are associated with methazolamide-induced SJS/TEN, genetic screening prior to methazolamide therapy in Asian populations is warranted.

Association Between HLA-B*1301 and Dapsone-Induced Cutaneous Adverse Drug Reactions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Dapsone-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DHS) is a life-threatening adverse drug reaction. Based on available epidemiologic studies, HLA genotypes may play an important role in DHS. Objective: To assess the association between HLA-B*1301 and dapsone-induced cutaneous adverse drug reactions (cADRs). Data Sources: Human studies investigating associations between HLA-B*1301 and dapsone-induced cADRs were systematically searched without language restriction from the inception of each database until September 12, 2017, in PubMed, the Human Genome Epidemiology Network), and the Cochrane Library. Combinations of HLA genotypes, dapsone, and synonymous terms were used; reference lists were searched in selected articles. Study Selection: Two reviewers identified studies investigating the associations between HLA-B*1301 and dapsone-induced cADRs that reported sufficient data for calculating the frequency of HLA-B*1301 carriers among case and control patients, in which all patients received dapsone before HLA-B*1301 screening. An initial search of the databases identified 391 articles, of which 3 studies (2 in Chinese populations and 1 in a Thai population) met the inclusion criteria. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Overall odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs were calculated using a random-effects model to determine the association between HLA-B*1301 and dapsone-induced cADRs. Subgroup analyses by type of cADR were also performed. PRISMA guidelines were used to abstract and assess data. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were associations between HLA-B*1301 and dapsone-induced cADRs in dapsone-tolerant controls. The outcomes are reported as overall OR. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the Q statistic and I2 tests. Results: From the 3 included studies, there were 111 unique patients with dapsone-induced cADRs (subsequently used in the meta-analysis), 1165 dapsone-tolerant patients, and 3026 healthy controls. The cases included 64 men and 49 women (2 patients were missing from the meta-analysis; 1 each from 2 of the 3 studies); mean age was 39.7 years. An association between HLA-B*1301 and dapsone-induced cADRs was identified (summary OR, 43.0; 95% CI, 24.0-77.2). Subgroup analyses among types of cADRs produced similar findings in DHS (OR, 51.7; 95% CI, 16.9-158.5), dapsone-induced severe cADRs (Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis [SJS/TEN] plus drug rash [adverse skin reaction to a drug] along with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms [DRESS]) (OR, 54.0; 95% Cl, 8.0-366.2), dapsone-induced SJS/TEN (OR, 40.5; 95% CI, 2.8-591.0), and dapsone-induced DRESS (OR, 60.8; 95% CI, 7.4-496.2). There was no heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, P = .38). Conclusions and Relevance: Associations between HLA-B*1301 and dapsone-induced cADRs were found in dapsone-tolerant and healthy control groups. For patient safety, genetic screening for HLA-B*1301 in Asian populations before dapsone therapy is warranted.

Association Between HLA genotypes and Oxcarbazepine-induced Cutaneous Adverse Drug Reactions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: To systematically review and quantitatively synthesize associations between HLA genotypes and oxcarbazepine-induced cutaneous adverse drug reactions (OXC-cADRs), including Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and maculopapular rash. METHODS: Studies investigating associations between HLA genotypes and OXC-cADRs were systematically searched irrespective of language, in PubMed, HuGENet (Human Genome Epidemiology Network), and the Cochrane Library from their inception until January, 2017. Inclusion criteria were studies investigating associations between HLA genotypes and OXC-cADRs that reported sufficient data for calculating the frequency of HLA genotype carriers among cases and controls. Overall odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95%CIs were calculated using a random-effects model to determine the association between HLA genotypes and OXC-cADRs.  RESULTS: The initial searches identified 91 articles, of which 6 studies met the selection criteria. The studies included 229 patients with OXC-cADRs, 251 OXC-tolerant patients, and 2,358 participants from general populations of Han Chinese, Korean, and Thai ethnicities.  Associations between HLA-B*1502 and OXC-induced SJS were found in both the general population [OR=30.2 (95%CI=3.45-264)] and in OXC-tolerant individuals [OR=26.4 (95%CI=7.98-87.6)]. An association between the HLA-B*1502 and OXC-induced maculopapular rash was found in the general population [OR=5.67 (95%CI=2.03-15.9)] while HLA-A*3101 also associated with OXC-induced maculopapular rash [overall OR=29.2 (95%CI=6.70-128)].  CONCLUSIONS: Strong associations between the HLA-B*1502 and OXC-cADRs (SJS and maculopapular rash) were found in both controls from general population and OXC-tolerant groups. There was also an association between HLA-B*3101 and OXC-induced maculopapular rash. For patient safety, genetic screening especially for HLA-B*1502 prior to OXC therapy at least in these closely related ethnicities is warranted. Further studies need to better define other ethnicities at risk and a wider range of MHC gene subtypes. This article is open to POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW. Registered readers (see "For Readers") may comment by clicking on ABSTRACT on the issue's contents page.

A pharmacokinetic model of drug-drug interaction between clopidogrel and omeprazole at CYP2C19 in humans.

BACKGROUND: Clopidogrel is a thienopryridine antiplatelet agent commonly used in the management of cardiovascular diseases. Clopidogrel is metabolized by hepatic CYP2C19 and CYP2B6, therefore, co-administration of clopidogrel and CYP2C19 inhibitors can alter pharmacokinetics of clopidogrel. Omeprazole is a proton pump inhibitor used for decreasing gastric acid production. Omeprazole is known to be a potent inhibitor of CYP2C19. Thus when the drugs are simultaneously administered, clopidogrel plasma concentration levels can be increased. However, plasma levels of the active metabolite of clopidogrel can be significantly decreased, thereby, its antiplatelet activity is reduced. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to develop a mathematical model describing a drug-drug interaction between clopidogrel and omeprazole in humans. METHODS: Searching for pharmacokinetic interaction studies between clopidogrel and omeprazole in humans was performed in PubMed. Six studies were selected into our modeling purposes to develop 3 mathematical models (i.e. 4 studies for clopidogrel alone, 1 study for omeprazole alone and 1 study for clopidogrel-omeprazole interaction). Subsequently, concentration-time course data from the selected studies were extracted. Computer codes and simulations were performed using the Advanced Continuous Simulating Language Extreme (ACSLX) program. RESULTS: We successfully developed 3 mathematical models which are able to describe all of the datasets. CONCLUSIONS: Our clopidogrel-omeprazole pharmacokinetic interaction model with a description of competitive inhibition at CYP2C19 could successfully describe concentration-time courses from the selected datasets. Our interaction model may be useful in predicting plasma levels of clopidogrel and its active metabolite.

Additive Synergism between Asbestos and Smoking in Lung Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Smoking and asbestos exposure are important risks for lung cancer. Several epidemiological studies have linked asbestos exposure and smoking to lung cancer. To reconcile and unify these results, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide a quantitative estimate of the increased risk of lung cancer associated with asbestos exposure and cigarette smoking and to classify their interaction. Five electronic databases were searched from inception to May, 2015 for observational studies on lung cancer. All case-control (N = 10) and cohort (N = 7) studies were included in the analysis. We calculated pooled odds ratios (ORs), relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model for the association of asbestos exposure and smoking with lung cancer. Lung cancer patients who were not exposed to asbestos and non-smoking (A-S-) were compared with; (i) asbestos-exposed and non-smoking (A+S-), (ii) non-exposure to asbestos and smoking (A-S+), and (iii) asbestos-exposed and smoking (A+S+). Our meta-analysis showed a significant difference in risk of developing lung cancer among asbestos exposed and/or smoking workers compared to controls (A-S-), odds ratios for the disease (95% CI) were (i) 1.70 (A+S-, 1.31-2.21), (ii) 5.65; (A-S+, 3.38-9.42), (iii) 8.70 (A+S+, 5.8-13.10). The additive interaction index of synergy was 1.44 (95% CI = 1.26-1.77) and the multiplicative index = 0.91 (95% CI = 0.63-1.30). Corresponding values for cohort studies were 1.11 (95% CI = 1.00-1.28) and 0.51 (95% CI = 0.31-0.85). Our results point to an additive synergism for lung cancer with co-exposure of asbestos and cigarette smoking. Assessments of industrial health risks should take smoking and other airborne health risks when setting occupational asbestos exposure limits.

Association of HLA-B*5701 genotypes and abacavir-induced hypersensitivity reaction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to systematically review and quantitatively synthesize the association between HLA-B*5701 and abacavir-induced hypersensitivity reaction (ABC-HSR). METHODS: We searched for studies that investigated the association between HLA-B genotype and ABC-HSR and provided information about the frequency of carriers of HLA-B genotypes among cases and controls. We then performed a meta-analysis with a random-effects model to pool the data and to investigate the sources of heterogeneity. RESULTS: From 1,026 articles identified, ten studies were included. Five using clinical manifestation as their diagnostic criteria, 409 and 1,883 subjects were included as cases and controls. Overall OR was 23.6 (95% CI = 15.4 - 36.3). Whereas, the another five studies using confirmed immunologic test as their diagnostic criteria, 110 and 1,968 subjects were included as cases and controls, respectively. The association of ABC-HSR was strong in this populations with HLA-B*5701. Overall OR was 1,056.2 (95% CI = 345.0 - 3,233.3). CONCLUSIONS: Using meta-analysis technique, the association between HLA-B*5701 and ABC-HSR is strong in the studies using immunologic confirmation to identify ABC-HSR. These results support the US FDA recommendations for screening HLA-B*5701 allele before initiating abacavir therapy.

Relationship between the HLA-B*1502 allele and carbamazepine-induced Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: The US Food and Drug Administration recommends screening for the HLA-B*1502 allele before initiation of carbamazepine therapy in patients of Asian ancestry, but there remains unclear evidence of a relationship between HLA-B*1502 and Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) among carbamazepine users, especially in some racial/ethnic populations. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between the HLA-B*1502 allele and carbamazepine-induced SJS and TEN. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search of the following data sources was performed without language restriction from the inception of the database until January 8, 2013: EMBASE, PubMed, clinicaltrials.gov, Cochrane Library, IPA (International Pharmaceutical Abstracts), HuGENet (Human Genome Epidemiology Network), and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and the reference lists of identified studies. STUDY SELECTION: Inclusion criteria were studies that investigated the relationship between HLA-B*1502 and carbamazepine-induced SJS and TEN and that reported sufficient data for calculating the frequency of HLA-B*1502 carriers among cases and controls. The search yielded 525 articles, of which 16 met the inclusion criteria. The studies included 227 SJS or TEN cases, 602 matched control subjects, and 2949 population control subjects. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently extracted the following data: study design, eligibility criteria, diagnostic criteria, patient demographics, genotype distribution, HLA-B genotyping technique, selection of cases and controls, dosage of carbamazepine and duration of use, and results of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium in the control group. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of studies. The overall odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% CIs were calculated using a random-effects model. The primary analysis was based on matched control studies. Subgroup analyses by race/ethnicity were also performed. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE: The primary outcome was carbamazepine-induced SJS and TEN. The outcome measure is given as an overall OR. RESULTS: The summary OR for the relationship between HLA-B*1502 and carbamazepine-induced SJS and TEN was 79.84 (95% CI, 28.45-224.06). Racial/ethnic subgroup analyses yielded similar findings for Han-Chinese (115.32; 18.17-732.13), Thais (54.43; 16.28-181.96), and Malaysians (221.00; 3.85-12 694.65). Among individuals of white or Japanese race/ethnicity, no patients with SJS or TEN were carriers of the HLA-B*1502 allele. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We found a strong relationship between the HLA-B*1502 allele and carbamazepine-induced SJS and TEN in Han-Chinese, Thai, and Malaysian populations. HLA-B*1502 screening in patients requiring carbamazepine therapy is warranted.