Comparison of the Therapeutic Effects of Rivaroxaban Versus Warfarin in Antiphospholipid Syndrome: A Systematic Review

The effectiveness and safety of botulinum toxin injections for the treatment of sialorrhea with Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Botulinum toxin (BoNT) injection is an important adjunctive method to treat sialorrhea. The purpose of this systematic review was to analyze the effect and safety of BoNT injections in the intervention of sialorrhea with Parkinson's disease (PD).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Web Of Science (WOS), Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Embase from inception until April 2022. Randomized controlled trials or randomized crossover trials comparing BoNT with placebo in sialorrhea with PD were eligible. PRISMA guidelines were used to carry out the meta-analysis. The Drooling Severity Frequency Scale (DSFS) score and the number of adverse events (AEs) were the primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) and risk differences (RDs) are used to express continuous and categorical outcomes, respectively. Heterogeneity among these studies was evaluated using I2 tests. We used the GRADE tool to assess the certainty of evidence (COE).

RESULTS

Eight articles involving 259 patients compared BoNT injections with a placebo for PD with sialorrhea. This meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in DSFS scores between BoNT injections and placebo (SMD=-0.98; 95% CI, -1.27 to 0.70, p<0.001; COE: high). This meta-analysis showed a significant difference in AEs between BoNT injections and placebo (RD=0.15; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.24, p=0.002; COE: low).

CONCLUSIONS

The pooled results suggest that BoNT injections have some effect on DSFS scores with sialorrhea caused by PD. There are also mild adverse events, which generally recover within a week or so. The results indicate that BoNT injection is one of the treatments for sialorrhea caused by PD, but we need to pay attention to adverse events. In addition, the follow-up time was extended to observe oral hygiene, ulceration or dental caries, and digestive function.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Our review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (42021288334).

Biopharmaceutics considerations for direct oral anticoagulants

Vitamin K antagonists (VKA) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been clinically used in the treatment of coagulation disorders. There are four DOACs approved since 2010 (dabigatran etexilate, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban), and they were designed to overcome the practical limitations of VKA. This review summarized biopharmaceutics considerations about DOACs, which are critically discussed, applying risk analyses to subside the further classification of these drugs according to the Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS). These discussions included data compiled about physicochemical properties, equilibrium solubility, permeability, and drug dissolution of DOACs. From the biopharmaceutics characteristics is possible to identify critical variables related to the absorption process, which can help in the design of new formulations. The data were compared with the criteria recommended by regulatory agencies for the biopharmaceutics classification according to the BCS. From that, these data may be used to discuss the approval of generic medicines by the BCS-based biowaiver, and the clinical risks arising from novel formulations with DOACs. However, although there are indications of biopharmaceutics classifications for DOACs, conclusive information to classify these compounds according to the BCS is lacking, requiring more experimental studies to achieve this aim. Conclusive information is essential for a safe decision about the biowaiver, as well as to guide the development of new formulations containing the DOACs.

PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews

The methods and results of systematic reviews should be reported in sufficient detail to allow users to assess the trustworthiness and applicability of the review findings. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to facilitate transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and has been updated (to PRISMA 2020) to reflect recent advances in systematic review methodology and terminology. Here, we present the explanation and elaboration paper for PRISMA 2020, where we explain why reporting of each item is recommended, present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations, and present examples from published reviews. We hope that changes to the content and structure of PRISMA 2020 will facilitate uptake of the guideline and lead to more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews.