Efficacy and safety of fezolinetant for vasomotor symptoms in postmenopausal women: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Vasomotor symptoms (VMS), such as hot flashes and night sweats, are highly prevalent and burdensome for women experiencing menopausal transition. Fezolinetant, a selective neurokinin 3 receptor (NK3R) antagonist, is a potential therapeutic option for mitigating VMS. OBJECTIVES: Our aim is to assess the efficacy and evaluate the safety profile of fezolinetant compared with placebo in post-menopausal women suffering from VMS, by pooling all the relevant data and reflecting the most current evidence. SEARCH STRATEGY/SELECTION CRITERIA: An extensive literature search was performed in the PubMed, Medline and Cochrane Library databases from inception until June 2023 to identify relevant trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for continuous outcomes. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. All statistical analyses were performed using R Statistical Software. MAIN RESULTS: A total of six randomized controlled trials were added. For the frequency of daily VMS, the combined pooled result favored the fezolinetant group over placebo (MD -2.38, 95% CI -2.64 to -2.12; P < 0.001, I2 = 0%). For the severity of daily VMS, fezolinetant was again found to be superior to the placebo group (MD -0.40, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.29; P < 0.001, I2 = 70%). Fezolinetant (120 mg) consistently demonstrated a significant reduction in the severity of daily moderate/severe VMS compared with other doses at both 4 and 12 weeks. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of Greene Climacteric Scale (GCS), PROMIS the Sleep Disturbance Short Form 8b and Menopause-Specific Quality of Life (MENQoL) scores indicated significant improvement with fezolinetant. No significant difference in efficacy of fezolinetant at 4 and 12 weeks were observed in any outcome. As for safety, no significant differences in the treatment emergent adverse events at 12 weeks were found between fezolinetant and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Our study significantly favors fezolinetant over placebo regarding the primary efficacy outcomes of daily moderate to severe VMS frequency and severity, including PROs, while both the groups are comparable in terms of treatment emergent adverse events. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Efficacy and Safety of Lotilaner Ophthalmic Solution 0.25% for the Treatment of Demodex Blepharitis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

PURPOSE: Demodex blepharitis, often overlooked in ocular surface disease, involves Demodex mites, prevalent ectoparasites on human skin. Current treatments may not effectively eliminate these mites, prompting a need for targeted therapies. Lotilaner, an antiparasitic agent, shows promise. This systematic review and meta-analysis assesses 0.25% lotilaner ophthalmic solution's efficacy in reducing Demodex mite populations and its impact on ocular surface inflammation in Demodex blepharitis patients. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed in the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases from inception until February 2024 to identify relevant trials investigating the use of lotilaner in patients with Demodex blepharitis. The included studies were assessed for quality, and a meta-analysis was conducted to determine the overall treatment effects of lotilaner. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for binary variables. All statistical analyses were performed using the R Statistical Software. RESULTS: Five studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Lotilaner demonstrated significant efficacy in Collarette Cure [OR = 6.64; 95 % CI 3.78 to 11.04; p < 0.00001, I2 = 62 %] %], clinically meaningful collarette reduction [OR = 6.21; 95 % CI 3.67 to 10.49; p < 0.00001, I2 = 90 %], and achieving at least 1-grade collarette improvement [OR = 5.12; 95 % CI (2.96 to 8.88); p < 0.00001, I2 = 90 %] compared to the placebo group. The treatment also resulted in mite eradication [OR = 6.18; 95 % CI 4.67 to 6.18; p < 0.00001, I2 = 34 %], reduction in mite density [OR = 9.37; 95 % CI 5.36 to 16.36; p < 0.00001, I2 = 84 %], and erythema cure [OR = 2.29; 95 % CI 2.24 to 3.39; p < 0.00001, I2 = 5 %] and composite cure [OR = 7.05; 95 % CI 3.66 13. 61; p < 0.00001, I2 = 11 %]. The study suggests that lotilaner is a promising therapeutic option for collarette and associated symptoms, but the high heterogeneity in some outcomes and limited long-term data warrant further research to confirm its effectiveness and safety. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis provides robust evidence supporting the efficacy of 0.25% lotilaner ophthalmic solution in treating Demodex blepharitis. Approval of this targeted therapy represents a significant milestone in ophthalmology and offers a promising treatment option for patients with Demodex blepharitis. Eye care professionals should consider the potential benefits of lotilaner in managing and alleviating the symptoms associated with Demodex infestations on the eyelids. Further research and long-term follow-up studies are warranted to assess the safety and effectiveness of lotilaner in treating Demodex blepharitis.

Efficacy and safety of Ciprofol compared with Propofol during general anesthesia induction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT).

BACKGROUND: Ciprofol, a newer entrant with similarities to propofol, has shown promise with a potentially improved safety profile, making it an attractive alternative for induction of general anesthesia. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of ciprofol compared with propofol during general anesthesia induction. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Clinical Trial.gov, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to July 2023 to identify relevant studies. All statistical analyses were conducted using R statistical software version 4.1.2. RESULTS: Thirteen Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) encompassing a total of 1998 participants, were included in our analysis. The pooled analysis indicated that Ciprofol was associated with a notably lower incidence of pain upon injection [RR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.23; I^2 = 43%, p < 0.0000001] and was non-inferior to propofol in terms of anesthesia success rate [RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.01; I^2 = 0%; p = 0.43]. In terms of safety, the incidence of hypotension was significantly lower in the ciprofol group [RR:0.82; 95% CI:0.68 to 0.98; I^2 = 48%; p = 0.03]. However, no statistically significant differences were found for postoperative hypertension, bradycardia, or tachycardia. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, Ciprofol is not inferior to Propofol in terms of its effectiveness in general anesthesia. Ciprofol emerges as a valuable alternative sedative with fewer side effects, especially reduced injection pain, when compared to Propofol. SUMMARY: Propofol, frequently utilized as an anesthetic, provides swift onset and quick recovery. However, it has drawbacks such as a narrow effective dosage range and a high occurrence of adverse effects, particularly pain upon injection. Ciprofol, a more recent drug with propofol-like properties, has demonstrated promise and may have an improved safety profile, making it a compelling alternative for inducing general anesthesia. This meta-analysis compared the safety and effectiveness of Ciprofol with Propofol for general anesthesia induction in a range of medical procedures, encompassing thirteen Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and 1998 individuals. The pooled analysis indicated that Ciprofol was associated with a notably lower incidence of pain upon injection [RR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.23; I^2 = 43%, p < 0.0000001] and was non-inferior to propofol in terms of anesthesia success rate [RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.01; I^2 = 0%; p = 0.43]. In terms of safety, the incidence of hypotension was significantly lower in the ciprofol group [RR:0.82; 95% CI:0.68 to 0.98; I^2 = 48%; p = 0.03]. However, no statistically significant differences were found for hypertension, bradycardia, or tachycardia. In conclusion, ciprofol is equally effective at inducing and maintaining general anesthesia as propofol. When compared to propofol, ciprofol is a better alternative sedative for operations including fiberoptic bronchoscopy, gynecological procedures, gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, and elective surgeries because it has less adverse effects, most notably less painful injections.

Effectiveness of erector spinae plane block in reducing opioid consumption after colorectal surgery: A comprehensive meta-analysis.

Despite the life-saving nature of colorectal surgeries, patients often experience intra and post-operative problems, especially pain and discomfort. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of erector spinae plane block (ESP block) in postoperative pain management for patients undergoing colorectal surgeries. A comprehensive systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed and Cochrane Library databases from inception until December 2023. Eight studies were deemed appropriate for inclusion. The pooled analysis demonstrated a significant decrease with the ESP block compared to the control group in postoperative opioid consumption [MD â€‹= â€‹-15.96 â€‹mg; 95 â€‹% CI (-28.74 to -3.18); p â€‹= â€‹0.014, I2 â€‹= â€‹87 â€‹%], intraoperative opioid consumption [MD â€‹= â€‹-35.51 â€‹mg; 95 â€‹% CI (-62.63 to -8.40); p â€‹= â€‹0.010, I2 â€‹= â€‹87 â€‹%], pain scores [MD â€‹= â€‹-0.94; 95 â€‹% CI (-1.27 to -0.60); p â€‹< â€‹0.000001, I2 â€‹= â€‹86 â€‹%], with a significantly shorter duration of hospital stay [MD â€‹= â€‹-1.25 days; 95 â€‹% CI (-2.02 to -0.48); p â€‹= â€‹0.002, I2 â€‹= â€‹23 â€‹%]. This meta-analysis support the use of erector spinae plane block (ESP) for postoperative pain management in colorectal surgeries. ESP shows significant reductions in opioid consumption, pain scores and hospital stay.