Are Newer Drugs Better? An Analysis of Neonatal Pharmacological Treatments across Generations.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Medical Principles and Practice Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-10 DOI:10.1159/000539729
Nai Ming Lai, Sajesh Kalkandi Veettil, Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk, Paul Glasziou
{"title":"Are Newer Drugs Better? An Analysis of Neonatal Pharmacological Treatments across Generations.","authors":"Nai Ming Lai, Sajesh Kalkandi Veettil, Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk, Paul Glasziou","doi":"10.1159/000539729","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>We evaluated the relative effects of newer versus older medications for neonatal conditions and trends in margin of superiority across generations.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We assessed network meta-analyses (NMAs) on neonatal pharmacological interventions identified from MEDLINE, Cochrane, and PROSPERO. Interventions were chronologically arranged based on the earliest study and compared for their effects against placebo or no treatment and their immediate predecessor. We assessed the time trend in effect sizes using the Mann-Kendall test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 8,048 retrieved records, 10 neonatal NMAs covering 352 trials and 102,653 participants were included. Compared to placebo, 56/61 (91.8%) interventions showed superiority with 23 (37.7%) statistically significant. Compared to previous generation, 47/72 (65.3%) showed superiority with 3 (4.2%) statistically significant. No significant trends in effect sizes were observed across generations for most conditions (p = 0.09-1).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found no evidence that newer generation medications in neonatal care are consistently more effective than older generation medications.</p>","PeriodicalId":18455,"journal":{"name":"Medical Principles and Practice","volume":" ","pages":"471-477"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11460952/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Principles and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000539729","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: We evaluated the relative effects of newer versus older medications for neonatal conditions and trends in margin of superiority across generations.

Materials and methods: We assessed network meta-analyses (NMAs) on neonatal pharmacological interventions identified from MEDLINE, Cochrane, and PROSPERO. Interventions were chronologically arranged based on the earliest study and compared for their effects against placebo or no treatment and their immediate predecessor. We assessed the time trend in effect sizes using the Mann-Kendall test.

Results: From 8,048 retrieved records, 10 neonatal NMAs covering 352 trials and 102,653 participants were included. Compared to placebo, 56/61 (91.8%) interventions showed superiority with 23 (37.7%) statistically significant. Compared to previous generation, 47/72 (65.3%) showed superiority with 3 (4.2%) statistically significant. No significant trends in effect sizes were observed across generations for most conditions (p = 0.09-1).

Conclusions: We found no evidence that newer generation medications in neonatal care are consistently more effective than older generation medications.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
新药是否更好?新生儿跨代药物治疗分析。
介绍:我们评估了新生儿疾病新药与旧药的相对效果,以及各代药物的优势趋势:我们评估了 Medline、Cochrane 和 PROSPERO 中有关新生儿药物干预的网络荟萃分析 (NMA)。根据最早的研究,按时间顺序排列干预措施,并将其效果与安慰剂或无治疗及其前身进行比较。我们使用 Mann-Kendall 检验法评估了效应大小的时间趋势:从检索到的 8048 条记录中,共纳入了 10 项新生儿 NMA,涵盖 352 项试验和 102,653 名参与者。与安慰剂相比,56/61(91.8%)项干预措施显示出优越性,其中 23 项(37.7%)具有显著的统计学意义。与上一代干预措施相比,47/72(65.3%)项干预措施显示出优越性,其中3项(4.2%)具有统计学意义。在大多数情况下,各代疗法的效果大小没有明显趋势(P = 0.09 至 1):我们没有发现新生儿护理中新一代药物比老一代药物更有效的证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Principles and Practice
Medical Principles and Practice 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
72
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: ''Medical Principles and Practice'', as the journal of the Health Sciences Centre, Kuwait University, aims to be a publication of international repute that will be a medium for dissemination and exchange of scientific knowledge in the health sciences.
期刊最新文献
Comparison of Thyroid Uptake Values Measured from 131I Scintigraphy and Uptake Probe in Hyperthyroid Patients. Coronary Implications of COVID-19. Global and Regional Burden of Vaccine-Associated Erythema Multiforme and Their Related Vaccines, 1967-2023: An In-Depth Analysis of the World Health Organization Pharmacovigilance Database. Plasma Sodium and Laboratory Parameters in Determining Complicated Appendicitis in Children. Response to the Letter on "Plasma Sodium and Laboratory Parameters in Determining Complicated Appendicitis in Children".
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1