-
Radiotherapy and Oncology : Journal of... Apr 2021An intact sense of taste provides pleasure, supports sustenance and alerts the body to toxins. Head and neck cancer (HNC) patients who receive radiotherapy (RT) are... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
An intact sense of taste provides pleasure, supports sustenance and alerts the body to toxins. Head and neck cancer (HNC) patients who receive radiotherapy (RT) are high-risk for developing radiation-induced taste dysfunction. Advances in RT offer opportunities for taste-preserving strategies by reducing dose to the gustatory organs-at-risk.
METHODS
PubMed, Medline and EMBASE were searched for publications reporting on taste, RT and HNC. Randomised trials, cohort studies and cross-sectional studies were included.
RESULTS
31 studies were included in this review. Meta-analysed prevalence of acute taste dysfunction following RT was approximately 96% (95% CI 64 to 100%) by objective measures and 79% (95% CI 65 to 88%) by subjective measures, with the majority of patients showing at least partial recovery. Long-term dysfunction was seen in ~25% of patients. Taste dysfunction was associated with sequalae including weight loss and reduced quality-of-life (QoL). Taste dysfunction was more common when the oral cavity, and specifically the anterior two-thirds of the tongue, was irradiated, suggesting a dose constraint for taste preservation might be feasible. Proton beam therapy and customised bite blocks reduced dose to the gustatory field and subsequent loss of taste.
CONCLUSIONS
Taste dysfunction following RT is common and negatively affects patients' nutritional status and QoL. Decisions about treatment strategies, including choice of RT modality, dose distribution across the gustatory field and the use of adjuncts like bite blocks may be beneficial. However, evidence is limited. There is a pressing need for randomised studies or large prospective cohort studies with sufficient adjustment for confounders.
Topics: Cross-Sectional Studies; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Humans; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Radiotherapy; Taste Disorders
PubMed: 33545253
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.01.021 -
The Laryngoscope Feb 2024Endoscopic ear surgery is no longer a promising technique, but a well-established one. This study aims to compare endoscopic and microscopic tympanoplasty based on... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Endoscopic ear surgery is no longer a promising technique, but a well-established one. This study aims to compare endoscopic and microscopic tympanoplasty based on current literature evidence, in terms of their efficacy and safety characteristics.
DATA SOURCES
We conducted a systematic literature search of four medical databases (Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov), focusing on randomized controlled or observational studies comparing microscopic to endoscopic tympanoplasty.
REVIEW METHODS
Data related to the efficacy and safety of each technique were extracted. Outcome data were summarized using pooled mean differences or pooled odds ratio along with their 95% confidence intervals. The risk of bias was estimated, by using the ROBINS-I and RoB-II assessment tools, while the overall quality of evidence was evaluated according to the GRADE working group.
RESULTS
Thirty-three studies, with 2646 patients in total, were included in the meta-analysis. Success rate was evaluated by estimating tympanic graft failure (pooled mean difference:-0.23; 95% CI: -0.61, 0.14, I = 33.42%), and air-bone gap improvement (pooled mean difference:-0.05; 95% CI:-0.23, 0.13, I = 52.69%), resulting in comparable outcomes for the two techniques. A statistically significant difference favoring the endoscopic technique was detected regarding postoperative wound infection (OR: -1.72; 95% CI: -3.39, -0.04, I = 0%), dysgeusia (OR: -1.47; 95% CI: -2.47, -0.47, I = 0%), otitis externa development (OR: -1.96; 95% CI: -3.23, -0.69, I = 0%), auricular numbness (OR: -2.56; 95% CI: -3.93, -1.19, I = 0%), as well as surgical duration (OR: -1.86; 95% CI: -2.70, -1.02, I = 43.95%), when compared to the postauricular microscopic approach.
CONCLUSION
Endoscopic tympanoplasty is an innovative alternative to the microscopic technique, resulting in commensurate outcomes regarding success rate. Furthermore, it offers superior results concerning postoperative complications, while it presents a significant reduction in the duration of surgery, mainly when it is compared to the postauricular microscopic approach.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
NA Laryngoscope, 2024.
PubMed: 38415937
DOI: 10.1002/lary.31365 -
International Journal of... 2022With the global epidemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), vaccination rates are increasing globally. This study evaluated the relevant clinical manifestations of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
With the global epidemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), vaccination rates are increasing globally. This study evaluated the relevant clinical manifestations of vaccinated COVID-19 patients.
METHODS
We searched carefully in 11 databases such as PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Ovid, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database, Wan Fang Data, Sinomed, VIP Database, and Reading Showing Database up to 26 March 2022. To search for articles that have described the characteristics of vaccinated patients including epidemiological and clinical symptoms. Statistical analysis of the extracted data using STATA 14.0.
RESULTS
A total of 58 articles and 263,708 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients were included. Most of the patients in the vaccinated group had more asymptomatic infection and fewer severe illnesses. There were significant differences in ethnicity, and strain infected with COVID-19, and comorbidities (hyperlipidemia, diabetes, obesity, kidney disease, immunocompromised, cardiovascular disease, and tumor) and symptoms (fever, cough, gastrointestinal symptoms, neurological symptoms, and dysgeusia/anosmia) between vaccinated group and unvaccinated group. Oxygen support, use of steroid, days in hospital, hospital treatment, ICU treatment, death, and poor prognosis were also significantly different.
CONCLUSION
Compared with the vaccinated group, patients in the unvaccinated group had a more severe clinical manifestations. Vaccines are also protective for infected people.
Topics: Humans; Cardiovascular Diseases; China; COVID-19; Neoplasms; Research Design
PubMed: 36412572
DOI: 10.1177/03946320221141802 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2023Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) aims to avoid severe COVID-19 in asymptomatic people or those with mild symptoms, thereby decreasing hospitalization and death. It... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) aims to avoid severe COVID-19 in asymptomatic people or those with mild symptoms, thereby decreasing hospitalization and death. It remains to be evaluated for which indications and patient populations the drug is suitable.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care (SoC) compared to SoC with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treating COVID-19 or preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. To explore equity aspects in subgroup analyses. To keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review (LSR) approach and make new relevant studies available to readers in-between publication of review updates.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Scopus, and World Health Organization COVID-19 Research Database, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions and incorporating studies up to 15 May 2023. This is a LSR. We conduct update searches every two months and make them publicly available on the open science framework (OSF) platform.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC to SoC with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We screened all studies for research integrity. Studies were ineligible if they had been retracted, or if they were not prospectively registered including appropriate ethics approval.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology and used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: 1. to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19; 2. to treat inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, quality of life, (serious) adverse events, and viral clearance; 3. to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in postexposure prophylaxis (PEP); and 4. pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) scenarios: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, and (serious) adverse events. We explored inequity by subgroup analysis for elderly people, socially-disadvantaged people with comorbidities, populations from low-income countries and low- to middle-income countries, and people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds.
MAIN RESULTS
As of 15 May 2023, we included two RCTs with 2510 participants with mild and mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 in outpatient and inpatient settings comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC to SoC with or without placebo. All trial participants were without previous confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and at high risk for progression to severe disease. Randomization coincided with the Delta wave for outpatients and Omicron wave for inpatients. Outpatient trial participants and 73% of inpatients were unvaccinated. Symptom onset in outpatients was no more than five days before randomisation and prior or concomitant therapies including medications highly dependent on CYP3A4 were not allowed. We excluded two studies due to concerns with research integrity. We identified 13 ongoing studies. Three studies are currently awaiting classification. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating people with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 in outpatient settings Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC compared to SoC plus placebo may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.68; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence) and admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.27; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC may reduce serious adverse events during the study period compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC probably has little or no effect on treatment-emergent adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.10; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably increases treatment-related adverse events such as dysgeusia and diarrhoea during the study period compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.95; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC probably decreases discontinuation of study drug due to adverse events compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported improvement of clinical status, quality of life, or viral clearance. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating people with moderate to severe COVID-19 in inpatient settings We are uncertain whether nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC compared to SoC reduces all-cause mortality at 28 days (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.86; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or increases viral clearance at seven days (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.58; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 14 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.20; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported improvement or worsening of clinical status and quality of life. We did not include data for safety outcomes due to insufficient and inconsistent information. Subgroup analyses for equity For outpatients, the outcome 'admission to hospital or death' was investigated for equity regarding age (less than 65 years versus 65 years or greater) and ethnicity. There were no subgroup differences for age or ethnicity. For inpatients, the outcome 'all-cause mortality' was investigated for equity regarding age (65 years or less versus greater than 65 years). There was no difference between subgroups of age. No further equity-related subgroups were reported, and no subgroups were reported for other outcomes. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (PrEP and PEP) No studies available.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low-certainty evidence suggests nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces the risk of all-cause mortality and hospital admission or death in high-risk, unvaccinated COVID-19 outpatients infected with the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2. There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence of the safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Very low-certainty evidence exists regarding the effects of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir on all-cause mortality and viral clearance in mildly to moderately affected, mostly unvaccinated COVID-19 inpatients infected with the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. Insufficient and inconsistent information prevents the assessment of safety outcomes. No reliable differences in effect size and direction were found regarding equity aspects. There is no available evidence supporting the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. We are continually updating our search and making search results available on the OSF platform.
Topics: Humans; Aged; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Ritonavir; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 38032024
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015395.pub3 -
European Archives of... Aug 2021These days, the gold standard procedure for otosclerosis treatment is stapes surgery. The endoscopic approach of the procedure is gaining popularity as endoscopic ear... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
These days, the gold standard procedure for otosclerosis treatment is stapes surgery. The endoscopic approach of the procedure is gaining popularity as endoscopic ear surgery develops across the globe. The main objective of this study is to gather and compile well-documented and reliable data regarding surgical outcomes for the endoscopic approach to stapes surgery up to this date.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Publications in English were searched in the PUBMED/MEDLINE database and were systematically reviewed. A total of 16 articles were reviewed according to the inclusion criteria, obtaining a total of 573 patients managed surgically for otosclerosis, using an endoscopic approach. Data were systematically extracted and compared across variables.
RESULTS
Data were obtained as follows: mean age of 43 years; female proportion of 60%; 3 mm endoscope diameter of 51%, 4 mm of 39%; titanium piston-type prostheses of 52% and Teflon of 48%; length of the prosthesis (mode) was 4.5 mm; 0.6 mm diameter of the piston of 81% and 0.4 mm of 19%; mean surgical time was 55 min. Hearing results, mean preoperative air-bone gap (ABG) 31 dB; mean postoperative ABG 9 dB; ABG improvement of 22 dB; an ABG closure rate to 20 dB or less of 92% and an ABG closure rate to 10 dB or less of 77%. Complication rates: intraoperative tympanic membrane perforation of 5%; postoperative vertigo of 11%; postoperative dysgeusia of 10%; reported a postoperative neurosensorial hearing loss of 0.2%; reported gusher phenomenon of one case (0.2%).
CONCLUSION
Endoscopic stapes surgery is completely achievable using 0º angle and 4-mm-diameter sinus surgery endoscope. Instrument availability should not be an obstacle to the development of this type of surgery in any otolaryngology department. Audiological outcomes are comparable to microscopic approaches.
Topics: Adult; Endoscopy; Female; Humans; Ossicular Prosthesis; Otosclerosis; Retrospective Studies; Stapes; Stapes Surgery; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33001293
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-020-06388-8 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Dec 2020Many head and neck cancer patients who receive radiation therapy experience radiation-induced dysgeusia (RID), which has no standard treatment. The only supplement... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Many head and neck cancer patients who receive radiation therapy experience radiation-induced dysgeusia (RID), which has no standard treatment. The only supplement controlled clinical trials have evaluated for the treatment of RID is zinc. However, the results of these and other studies investigating the use of zinc for RID have been inconsistent. To assess the validity of zinc as a treatment for RID, we conducted a systematic literature search and performed a meta-analysis to determine the extent to which zinc affects RID incidence and the degree to which ongoing RID responds to zinc.
METHODS
We searched the Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases to identify studies investigating the use of zinc-based therapy for RID in head and neck cancer patients treated with radiation that were published between January 1, 2003, and November 9, 2017. Using American Society of Clinical Oncology criteria, we selected studies with a high level of evidence for inclusion in the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Of the 32 full-text articles eligible for inclusion, three were included in the final review and meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that, compared with placebo, zinc reduces the incidence of RID (risk ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.92) but does not improve taste acuity more rapidly following radiation therapy (risk ratio, 2.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.97-6.88).
CONCLUSION
Our findings indicate that zinc-based therapy reduces the incidence of RID but has a minimal effect on ongoing RID. Our findings also highlight the need for additional evidence-based research on this topic.
Topics: Case-Control Studies; Cross-Sectional Studies; Dysgeusia; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Humans; Longitudinal Studies; Prospective Studies; Radiation Injuries; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Zinc
PubMed: 32642950
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-020-05578-8 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2014Lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) is the third leading cause of death worldwide and the first leading cause of death in low-income countries. Community-acquired... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) is the third leading cause of death worldwide and the first leading cause of death in low-income countries. Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common condition that causes a significant disease burden for the community, particularly in children younger than five years, the elderly and immunocompromised people. Antibiotics are the standard treatment for CAP. However, increasing antibiotic use is associated with the development of bacterial resistance and side effects for the patient. Several studies have been published regarding optimal antibiotic treatment for CAP but many of these data address treatments in hospitalised patients. This is an update of our 2009 Cochrane Review and addresses antibiotic therapies for CAP in outpatient settings.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and safety of different antibiotic treatments for CAP in participants older than 12 years treated in outpatient settings with respect to clinical, radiological and bacteriological outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March week 3, 2014), EMBASE (January 1974 to March 2014), CINAHL (2009 to March 2014), Web of Science (2009 to March 2014) and LILACS (2009 to March 2014).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We looked for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), fully published in peer-reviewed journals, of antibiotics versus placebo as well as antibiotics versus another antibiotic for the treatment of CAP in outpatient settings in participants older than 12 years of age. However, we did not find any studies of antibiotics versus placebo. Therefore, this review includes RCTs of one or more antibiotics, which report the diagnostic criteria and describe the clinical outcomes considered for inclusion in this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (LMB, TJMV) independently assessed study reports in the first publication. In the 2009 update, LMB performed study selection, which was checked by TJMV and MMK. In this 2014 update, two review authors (SP, SM) independently performed and checked study selection. We contacted trial authors to resolve any ambiguities in the study reports. We compiled and analysed the data. We resolved differences between review authors by discussion and consensus.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 RCTs in this review update (3352 participants older than 12 years with a diagnosis of CAP); 10 RCTs assessed nine antibiotic pairs (3321 participants) and one RCT assessed four antibiotics (31 participants) in people with CAP. The study quality was generally good, with some differences in the extent of the reporting. A variety of clinical, bacteriological and adverse events were reported. Overall, there was no significant difference in the efficacy of the various antibiotics. Studies evaluating clarithromycin and amoxicillin provided only descriptive data regarding the primary outcome. Though the majority of adverse events were similar between all antibiotics, nemonoxacin demonstrated higher gastrointestinal and nervous system adverse events when compared to levofloxacin, while cethromycin demonstrated significantly more nervous system side effects, especially dysgeusia, when compared to clarithromycin. Similarly, high-dose amoxicillin (1 g three times a day) was associated with higher incidence of gastritis and diarrhoea compared to clarithromycin, azithromycin and levofloxacin.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Available evidence from recent RCTs is insufficient to make new evidence-based recommendations for the choice of antibiotic to be used for the treatment of CAP in outpatient settings. Pooling of study data was limited by the very low number of studies assessing the same antibiotic pairs. Individual study results do not reveal significant differences in efficacy between various antibiotics and antibiotic groups. However, two studies did find significantly more adverse events with use of cethromycin as compared to clarithromycin and nemonoxacin when compared to levofloxacin. Multi-drug comparisons using similar administration schedules are needed to provide the evidence necessary for practice recommendations. Further studies focusing on diagnosis, management, cost-effectiveness and misuse of antibiotics in CAP and LRTI are warranted in high-, middle- and low-income countries.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Community-Acquired Infections; Humans; Outpatients; Pneumonia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25300166
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002109.pub4 -
F1000Research 2021: The present study aimed to determine the global prevalence of anosmia and dysgeusia in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and to assess their association... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Anosmia and dysgeusia in SARS-CoV-2 infection: incidence and effects on COVID-19 severity and mortality, and the possible pathobiology mechanisms - a systematic review and meta-analysis.
: The present study aimed to determine the global prevalence of anosmia and dysgeusia in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and to assess their association with severity and mortality of COVID-19. Moreover, this study aimed to discuss the possible pathobiological mechanisms of anosmia and dysgeusia in COVID-19. : Available articles from PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and preprint databases (MedRxiv, BioRxiv, and Researchsquare) were searched on November 10th, 2020. Data on the characteristics of the study (anosmia, dysgeusia, and COVID-19) were extracted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess research quality. Moreover, the pooled prevalence of anosmia and dysgeusia were calculated, and the association between anosmia and dysgeusia in presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was assessed using the Z test. : Out of 32,142 COVID-19 patients from 107 studies, anosmia was reported in 12,038 patients with a prevalence of 38.2% (95% CI: 36.5%, 47.2%); whereas, dysgeusia was reported in 11,337 patients out of 30,901 COVID-19 patients from 101 studies, with prevalence of 36.6% (95% CI: 35.2%, 45.2%), worldwide. Furthermore, the prevalence of anosmia was 10.2-fold higher (OR: 10.21; 95% CI: 6.53, 15.96, < 0.001) and that of dysgeusia was 8.6-fold higher (OR: 8.61; 95% CI: 5.26, 14.11, < 0.001) in COVID-19 patients compared to those with other respiratory infections or COVID-19 like illness. To date, no study has assessed the association of anosmia and dysgeusia with severity and mortality of COVID-19. : Anosmia and dysgeusia are prevalent in COVID-19 patients compared to those with the other non-COVID-19 respiratory infections. Several possible mechanisms have been hypothesized; however, future studies are warranted to elucidate the definitive mechanisms of anosmia and dysgeusia in COVID-19. PROSPERO CRD42020223204.
Topics: Anosmia; COVID-19; Dysgeusia; Humans; Incidence
PubMed: 33824716
DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.28393.1 -
Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology 2015Taste is of great importance for the feeding process. Seen in this light, it is essential to investigate this sense in children as developing human beings. However,... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Taste is of great importance for the feeding process. Seen in this light, it is essential to investigate this sense in children as developing human beings. However, despite little variation in the use of tests that measure the gustatory capacity, there are still questions about the applicability and effective use of tools for quantitative assessment in children.
OBJECTIVE
To search the literature on quantitative instruments used for the evaluation of taste used in studies with children.
METHODS
A search was conducted in the PUBMED and Web of Science platforms, and subsequently, the identified articles were selected and reviewed. The descriptors and terms used were "taste," "child," "assessment," "diagnosis," and "dysgeusia". Original articles related to the theme in English, restricted to children and with no year limitation, were selected. Studies conducted in other stages of human development, exclusively or concurrently with the pediatric population; animal studies; literature review articles; dissertations and book chapters; and case studies and editorials were excluded. The data analysis was performed through a cataloging protocol created for this study, including the following points: author, research department, year, location, population/sample, age, purpose of the study, methods, and primary results.
RESULTS
5613 items were found. 5307 were excluded based on title, 248 by abstract analysis, and 43 by full text evaluation. Fifteen articles were selected for analysis; of these, six were repeated articles, and thus nine articles were selected for review.
CONCLUSION
The tests aiming at evaluation of taste were judiciously used, ensuring reliability for future research, which may employ methods similar to previous studies.
Topics: Child; Evaluation Studies as Topic; Humans; Reproducibility of Results; Taste
PubMed: 25458259
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2014.04.002 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2021Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) combined with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-targeted therapy and sunitinib monotherapy have been...
BACKGROUND
Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) combined with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-targeted therapy and sunitinib monotherapy have been widely applied to metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), effectiveness and safety data are still lacking. To optimize clinical decision-making, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized clinical trials to characterize the efficacy and the risk of adverse events (AEs) in patients treated with ICIs plus anti-VEGF therapy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We used PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before March 27, 2021. The efficacy outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR). The pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of AEs were calculated in the safety analysis.
RESULTS
Six RCTs involving 4,227 patients were identified after a systematic search. For OS, ICI and anti-VEGF combination therapy decreased mortality approximately 30% in the intention-to-treat population (ITT) (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.57-0.87), but there was no statistical difference in patients evaluated as "favorable" by the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria compared with monotherapy (HR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.55-1.46, = 0.66). In terms of PFS, the progression risk for all participants declined 35% (HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.50-0.83) and patients evaluated as "poor" by IMDC benefited further (HR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.36-0.58). No evident divergence was found in age and sex subgroups. The RRs of all-grade hypertension, arthralgia, rash, proteinuria, high-grade (grades 3-5) arthralgia, and proteinuria developed after combination therapy were increased compared with sunitinib. The risk of high-grade hypertension and rash showed no statistical difference. However, the risk of hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR), stomatitis, and dysgeusia decreased in combination therapy groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared with sunitinib, OS, PFS, and ORR were significantly improved in patients receiving ICI and anti-VEGF combination therapy at the expense of increased specific AEs. More attention should be paid to individualized application of these combination therapies to achieve the best benefit-risk ratio in the clinic.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
[https://inplasy.com/] INPLASY: 202130104.
PubMed: 34722290
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.739263