Loading…
A systematic literature review of cysteamine bitartrate in the treatment of nephropathic cystinosis
Objectives: To summarize available clinical evidence for cysteamine bitartrate preparations in the treatment of nephropathic cystinosis as identified through a systematic literature review (SLR). Methods: We searched MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process and Embase using Ovid with a predefined search strategy...
Saved in:
Published in: | Current medical research and opinion 2017-11, Vol.33 (11), p.2065-2076 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | Objectives: To summarize available clinical evidence for cysteamine bitartrate preparations in the treatment of nephropathic cystinosis as identified through a systematic literature review (SLR).
Methods: We searched MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process and Embase using Ovid with a predefined search strategy through 19 January 2016. All publicly available clinical reports on the use of delayed-release (DR) cysteamine bitartrate (Procysbi
1
) or immediate-release (IR) cysteamine bitartrate (Cystagon
2
) in patients with cystinosis were included.
Results: We identified a total of 103 publications and 10 trial records. Of these, 9 studies describe DR cysteamine bitartrate (n = 267 patients), 42 describe IR cysteamine bitartrate (n = 1,427 patients) and in 53 studies the exact preparation was not specified (n = 906 patients). The vast majority of the studies used a non-randomized study design, with randomized clinical trials (RCTs) being scarce (1 study comparing DR and IR formulation) and case reports (n = 49) being the most common study design representing 47% of the total.
Conclusion: A substantial evidence base for cysteamine bitartrate in the treatment of nephropathic cystinosis was identified. However, the majority of the evidence was of relatively low quality, with evidence levels of 3 or 4. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0300-7995 1473-4877 |
DOI: | 10.1080/03007995.2017.1354288 |