Pyrimethamine reduced tumour growth in pre-clinical cancer models: a systematic review to identify potential pre-clinical studies for subsequent human clinical trials

Pyrimethamine (PYR), a STAT3 inhibitor, has been shown to reduce tumour burden in mouse cancer models. It is unclear how much of a reduction occurred or whether the PYR dosages and route of administration used in mice were consistent with the FDA's recommendations for drug repurposing. Search engines such as ScienceDirect, PubMed/MEDLINE, and other databases, including Google Scholar, were thoroughly searched, as was the reference list. The systematic review includes fourteen (14) articles. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using SYRCLE's guidelines. Due to the heterogeneity of the data, no meta-analysis was performed. According to the RoB assessment, 13/14 studies fall into the moderate RoB category, with one study classified as high RoB. None adhered to the ARRIVE guideline for transparent research reporting. Oral (FDA-recommended) and non-oral routes of PYR administration were used in mice, with several studies reporting very high PYR dosages that could lead to myelosuppression, while oral PYR dosages of 30 mg/kg or less are considered safe. Direct human equivalent dose translation is probably not the best strategy for comparing whether the used PYR dosages in mice are in line with FDA-approved strength because pharmacokinetic profiles, particularly PYR's half-life (t1/2), between humans (t1/2 = 96 h) and mice (t1/2 = 6 h), must also be considered. Based on the presence of appropriate control and treatment groups, as well as the presence of appropriate clinically proven chemotherapy drug(s) for comparison purposes, only one study (1/14) involving liver cancer can be directed into a clinical trial. Furthermore, oesophageal cancer too can be directed into clinical trials, where the indirect effect of PYR on the NRF2 gene may suppress oesophageal cancer in patients, but this must be done with caution because PYR is an investigational drug for oesophageal cancer, and combining it with proven chemotherapy drug(s) is recommended.

Baricitinib statistically significantly reduced COVID-19-related mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of five phase III randomized, blinded and placebo-controlled clinical trials

Due to high heterogeneity and risk of bias (RoB) found in previously published meta-analysis (MA), a concrete conclusion on the efficacy of baricitinib in reducing mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients was unable to form. Hence, this systematic review and MA were conducted to analyse whether RoB, heterogeneity, and optimal sample size from placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are still the problems to derive a concrete conclusion. Search engines PubMed/MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, and other sources like preprints and reference lists were searched with appropriate keywords. The RoB and MA were conducted using RevMan 5.4. The grading of the articles was conducted using the GRADEPro Guideline Development Tool. Ten RCTs were included in the current systematic review. Only five low RoB articles are Phase III placebo-controlled RCTs with a high certainty level based on the GRADE grading system. For the MA, based on five low RoB articles, baricitinib statistically significantly reduced mortality where the risk ratio (RR) = 0.68 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.56-0.82; P < 0.0001; I2 = 0%; P = 0.85]. The absolute mortality effect (95% CI) based on the grading system was 35 fewer mortalities per 1000 COVID-19 patients, whereas in the baricitinib and control groups, the mortality was 7.4% and 10.9%, respectively. With the presence of an optimal sample size of 3944 from five low RoB-placebo-controlled RCTs, which represent a minimum of 300 million population of people and with the presence of 0% heterogeneity from MA, the effectiveness of baricitinib in reducing the mortality in COVID-19 patients is concretely proven.

Epstein Barr Virus Reactivation during COVID-19 Hospitalization Significantly Increased Mortality/Death in SARS-CoV-2(+)/EBV(+) than SARS-CoV-2(+)/EBV(-) Patients: A Comparative Meta-Analysis

Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) reactivation in acute-phase of COVID-19 disease was recently discovered but it is not clear in terms of degree of mortality caused, and this was the aim of the current study. Six databases and three non-databases were thoroughly searched, independently. The articles related to non-human study (abstract, in vitro, in vivo, in silico, case study, poster, and review articles) were excluded for main analysis. Four articles related to mortality linked to EBV reactivation were systematically identified and included in the qualitative and quantitative analyses. Based on proportional meta-analysis of 4 studies, 34.3% or 0.343 (95% CI: 0.189-0.516; I ² = 74.6) mortality related to EBV reactivation was identified. To address high heterogeneity, subgroup meta-analysis was carried out. Based on subgroup analysis, 26.6% or 0.266 (95% CI: 0.191-0.348; I ² = 0) with no heterogeneity was identified. Interestingly, in comparative meta-analysis, EBV(-)/SARS-CoV-2(+) patients had statistically lesser mortality (9.9%) than EBV(+)/SARS-CoV-2(+) patients (23.6%) where RR = 2.31 (95% CI: 1.34-3.99; p = 0.003; I ² = 6%). This finding is equivalent to the absolute mortality effect of 130 more per 1000 COVID-19 patients (95% CI: 34-296). Furthermore, based on statistical analysis, D-dimer was not statistically significantly different (p > 0.05) between the groups although studies have shown that D-dimer was statistically significantly different (p < 0.05) between these groups. Based on the inclusion and analysis of low risk of bias and high quality of articles graded with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), when COVID-19 patients' health state is gradually worsening, EBV reactivation needs to be suspected because EBV reactivation is a possible marker for COVID-19 disease severity.

Does baricitinib reduce mortality and disease progression in SARS-CoV-2 virus infected patients? A systematic review and meta analysis

Background

There are conflicting reports on the results of several of the latest clinical trials related to the use of baricitinib in the management of COVID-19 patients. The aim of the current systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of baricitinib in COVID-19 patients.

Methods

Databases like ScienceDirect, PubMed/Medline, Publons, Google Scholar and other sources like ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane, medRxiv, Research Square and reference lists were thoroughly searched.

Results

Fifteen (15) articles which met the inclusion criteria were qualitatively and quantitatively analysed. Based on Cochrane and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) risk of bias (RoB) analyses, 14/15 articles are grouped as high-quality. Meta-analyses revealed that randomised control trials (RCTs) and non-randomised control trials (nRCTs) statistically significantly reduced the mortality rate in COVID-19 patients, with a risk ratio (RR) in the fixed-effect model was RR = 0.64 [95% CI: 0.51 to 0.79; p < 0.0001] and RR = 0.58 [95% CI: 0.45 to 0.73; p < 0.00001], respectively, with insignificant heterogeneity and no publication bias found. For block/reduce disease progression (BDP), baricitinib did not statistically significantly reduce disease progression for RCTs. The RR in the random effect model was RR = 0.80 [95% CI: 0.58 to 1.10: p = 0.17], with significant heterogeneity, where I² was 60%. On the other hand, baricitinib statistically significantly reduced disease progression in nRCTs, as the RR of the fixed effect model was RR = 0.54 [95% CI: 0.37 to 0.78; p = 0.001] with insignificant heterogeneity.

Conclusion

The current meta-analyses revealed that baricitinib statistically significantly reduced mortality rate and disease progression in COVID-19 patients.

Prospero registration number

CRD42021281556

[Efficacy of staging surgery in pulmonary atresia with intact ventricular septum]

Objective: To assess the feasibility and efficacy of a staged invasive treatment strategy for the treatment of pulmonary atresia with intact ventricular septum, in the first stage using a catheter-based stent placement, second-stage surgery, and three-stage atrial septal occlusion. Methods: Totally 19 children with pulmonary atresia with intact ventricular septum were enrolled at Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, the Children's Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine from January 2009 to December 2017, including 11 male and 8 female patients. The age was (13.8±7.7) days (ranging from 3 to 35 days). The weight was (3.4±0.5) kg (ranging from 2.8 to 4.1 kg). Among them, there were 13 cases of type Ⅱ and 6 cases of type Ⅲ. Regular follow-up visits for patients with stage Ⅰ arterial duct stenting after 1, 3, and 6 months; and routine follow-ups for 1, 3, and 6 months after stage Ⅱ surgery.The t test was used to compare the oxygen saturation between pre-operation and post-operation. Results: All 19 patients underwent arterial catheterization. The preoperative peripheral oxygen saturation was (64.4±5.3)%, while increased to (86.0±3.0)% after operation (t=16.353, P=0.000). One patient died during follow-up and 2 patients lost follow-up. One patient received stent balloon dilatation due to oxygen saturation decrease.Twelve patients completed the second-stage surgery and 1 case died after surgery. The rest were alive, including 2 cases of double-ventricular correction and 9 cases of semi-ventricular treatment in one room; 2 cases had completed three-stage atrial septal occlusion. Conclusions: Stage Ⅰ arterial duct stent, stage Ⅱ surgery, and stage Ⅲ atrial septal occlusion to treat pulmonary atresia with intact ventricular septum in children is feasible and effective. The method can be used as the important treatment direction for pulmonary atresia with intact ventricular septum.