Background:Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a condition in which a clot forms in the deep veins, most commonly of the leg. It occurs in approximately one in 1000 people. If left untreated, the clot can travel up to the lungs and cause a potentially life-threatening pulmonary embolism (PE). Previously, a DVT was treated with the anticoagulants heparin and vitamin K antagonists. However, two forms of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been developed: oral direct thrombin inhibitors (DTIs) and oral factor Xa inhibitors, which have characteristics that may be favourable compared to conventional treatment, including oral administration, a predictable effect, lack of frequent monitoring or dose adjustment and few known drug interactions. DOACs are now commonly being used for treating DVT: recent guidelines recommended DOACs over conventional anticoagulants for both DVT and PE treatment. This Cochrane Review was first published in 2015. It was the first systematic review to measure the effectiveness and safety of these drugs in the treatment of DVT. This is an update of the 2015 review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral DTIs and oral factor Xa inhibitors versus conventional anticoagulants for the long-term treatment of DVT. Search methods:The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 1 March 2022. Selection criteria:We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which people with a DVT, confirmed by standard imaging techniques, were allocated to receive an oral DTI or an oral factor Xa inhibitor compared with conventional anticoagulation or compared with each other for the treatment of DVT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), recurrent DVT and PE. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, major bleeding, post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) and quality of life (QoL). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Main results:We identified 10 new studies with 2950 participants for this update. In total, we included 21 RCTs involving 30,895 participants. Three studies investigated oral DTIs (two dabigatran and one ximelagatran), 17 investigated oral factor Xa inhibitors (eight rivaroxaban, five apixaban and four edoxaban) and one three-arm trial investigated both a DTI (dabigatran) and factor Xa inhibitor (rivaroxaban). Overall, the studies were of good methodological quality. Meta-analysis comparing DTIs to conventional anticoagulation showed no clear difference in the rate of recurrent VTE (odds ratio (OR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.65; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), recurrent DVT (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.66; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fatal PE (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.29 to 6.02; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), non-fatal PE (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.59; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.08; 1 study, 2489 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). DTIs reduced the rate of major bleeding (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.89; 3 studies, 5994 participants; high-certainty evidence). For oral factor Xa inhibitors compared with conventional anticoagulation, meta-analysis demonstrated no clear difference in recurrent VTE (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01; 13 studies, 17,505 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), recurrent DVT (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.01; 9 studies, 16,439 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fatal PE (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.02; 6 studies, 15,082 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), non-fatal PE (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.27; 7 studies, 15,166 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.14; 9 studies, 10,770 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis showed a reduced rate of major bleeding with oral factor Xa inhibitors compared with conventional anticoagulation (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.89; 17 studies, 18,066 participants; high-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current review suggests that DOACs may be superior to conventional therapy in terms of safety (major bleeding), and are probably equivalent in terms of efficacy. There is probably little or no difference between DOACs and conventional anticoagulation in the prevention of recurrent VTE, recurrent DVT, pulmonary embolism and all-cause mortality. DOACs reduced the rate of major bleeding compared to conventional anticoagulation. The certainty of evidence was moderate or high.

Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic immune-mediated disease of the central nervous system, with an unpredictable course. Current MS therapies such as disease-modifying therapies focus on treating exacerbations, preventing new exacerbations and avoiding the progression of disability. Siponimod (BAF312) is an oral treatment, a selective sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) receptor modulator, for the treatment of adults with relapsing forms of MS including active, secondary progressive MS with relapses. Objectives: To assess the benefits and adverse effects of siponimod as monotherapy or combination therapy versus placebo or any active comparator for people diagnosed with MS. Search methods: On 18 June 2020, we searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the CNS Trials Register, which contains studies from CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase, and the trials registry databases ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We also handsearched relevant journals and screened the reference lists of published reviews and retrieved articles and searched reports (2004 to June 2020) from the MS societies in Europe and America. Selection criteria: We included randomised parallel controlled clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated siponimod, as monotherapy or combination therapy, versus placebo or any active comparator in people with MS. There were no restrictions on dose or administration frequency. Data collection and analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We discussed disagreements and resolved them by consensus among the review authors. Our primary outcomes wereworsening disability, relapse and adverse events, and secondary outcomes were annualised relapse rate, gadolinium-enhancing lesions, new lesions or enlarged pre-existing lesions and mean change of brain volume. We independently evaluated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. We contacted principal investigators of included studies for additional data or confirmation of data. Main results: Two studies (1948 participants) met our selection criteria, 608 controls and 1334 treated with siponimod. The included studies compared siponimod with placebo. Overall, all studies had a high risk of bias due to selective reporting and attrition bias. Comparing siponimod administered at a dose of 2 mg to placebo, we found that siponimod may reduce the number of participants with disability progression at six months (56 fewer people per 1000; risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 0.94; 1 study, 1641 participants; low-certainty evidence) and annualised relapse rate (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.56; 2 studies, 1739 participants; low-certainty evidence). But it might lead to little reduction in the number of participants with new relapse (166 fewer people per 1000; RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.00; 1 study, 94 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We observed no evidence of a difference due to adverse events for siponimod at 2 mg compared to placebo (14 more people per 1000; RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.71; 2 studies, 1739 participants, low-certainty evidence). In addition, due to the high risk of inaccurate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data in the two included studies, we could not combine data for active lesions on MRI scans. Both studies had high attrition bias resulting from the unbalanced reasons for dropouts among groups and high risk of bias due to conflicts of interest. Siponimod may reduce the number of gadolinium-enhancing T1-weighted lesions at two years of follow-up (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.19; P < 0.0001; 1 study, 1641 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be no evidence of a difference between groups in the number of participants with at least one serious adverse event excluding relapses (113 more people per 1000; RR 1.80, 95% CI 0.37 to 8.77; 2 studies, 1739 participants; low-certainty evidence) at six months. No data were available regarding cardiac adverse events. In terms of safety profile, the most common adverse events associated with siponimod were headache, back pain, bradycardia, dizziness, fatigue, influenza, urinary tract infection, lymphopenia, nausea, alanine amino transferase increase and upper respiratory tract infection. These adverse events have dose-related effects and rarely led to discontinuation of treatment. Authors' conclusions: Based on the findings of the RCTs included in this review, we are uncertain whether siponimod interventions are beneficial for people with MS. There was low-certainty evidence to support that siponimod at a dose of 2 mg orally once daily as monotherapy compared with placebo may reduce the annualised relapse rate and the number of participants who experienced disability worsening, at 6 months. However, the certainty of the evidence to support the benefit in reducing the number of people with a relapse is very low. The risk of withdrawals due to adverse events requires careful monitoring of participants over time. The duration of all studies was less than 24 months, so the efficacy and safety of siponimod over 24 months are still uncertain, and further exploration is needed in the future. There is no high-certainty data available to evaluate the benefit on MRI outcomes. We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence for all outcomes was low to very low, downgraded due to serious study limitations, imprecision and indirectness. We are uncertain whether siponimod is beneficial for people with MS. More new studies with robust methodology and longer follow-up are needed to evaluate the benefit of siponimod for the management of MS and to observe long-term adverse effects. Also, in addition to comparing with placebo, more new studies are needed to evaluate siponimod versus other therapeutic options

Objectives Soluble urokinase plasminogen activated receptor (suPAR) is a biomarker that may predict the occurrence of focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS); however, there is still controversy about whether suPAR can predict FSGS. In this study, we performed a systematic evaluation and meta-analysis to prove whether suPAR can predict FSGS, and to detect a threshold concentration of suPAR that can be used to diagnose FSGS. In addition, a threshold concentration of suPAR for the diagnosis of FSGS was proposed. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and China Biology Medicine databases for studies published from the inception dates to 1 December 2018. Eligibility criteria (1) Data involving the suPAR level were from blood samples; (2) FSGS was diagnosed by biopsy; and (3) randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies. Data extraction and synthesis Initially, a total of 364 studies were searched, among which 29 studies were finally included. In addition, seven studies described the cut-off value of suPAR, which ranged from 2992.6 to 5500 pg/mL. Results The results showed that the suPAR levels in the primary FSGS group were significantly higher when compared with that in the normal control group (p<0.001; standard mean difference (SMD): 2.56; 95% CI 1.85 to 3.28), and significant differences were observed in the secondary FSGS and in the normal control group (p<0.001; SMD: 1.68; 95% CI 1.37 to 1.98). A suPAR concentration of 3000 pg/mL may be the best threshold for the diagnosis of primary FSGS (sensitivity=0.72; specificity=0.88; area under the curve=0.85). Conclusion Our results suggested that suPAR might be a potential biomarker for predicting primary and secondary FSGS. In addition, our data showed that a suPAR concentration of 3000 pg/mL might be used as a threshold for the diagnosis of FSGS.

Purpose: To evaluate the methodological quality and summarize evidence of important outcomes of systematic reviews (SRs)/Meta analyses (MM) of acupuncture for anxiety. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search for SRs/MAs in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Chinese Biomedical Databases (CBM), Wanfang database and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) until November 30, 2018. Three reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the reviews according to the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to rate the quality of evidence. In the pre-experiment, we used the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) to assess reviewer agreement, the ICC value for overall score was 0.978. Results: Ten reviews were included. The assessment results of AMSTAR-2 showed that the methodological quality of all included studies was critically low. The lowest score were item "provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions" and item "report sources of funding for the included studies", none of studies provided information about the above two items, followed by the "providing a priori design" item with only two (20%) studies conforming to this item. For GRADE, of the 7 outcomes, high quality evidence was provided in only 1 (14.3%), moderate in 2 (28.6.7%), and low in 4 (57.1%). Conclusion: Although most of the included reviews indicated that acupuncture group was more effective than control group in the treatment of anxiety, more importantly, the methodological quality of the included reviews and the quality of evidence were low. More high-quality evidence is needed to determine whether acupuncture is more effective than other treatments.