-
Scientific Reports Jan 2024We aimed to summarize the cancer risk among patients with indication of group I pharmaceuticals as stated in monographs presented by the International Agency for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
We aimed to summarize the cancer risk among patients with indication of group I pharmaceuticals as stated in monographs presented by the International Agency for Research on Cancer working groups. Following the PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted using the PubMed database. Pharmaceuticals with few studies on cancer risk were identified in systematic reviews; those with two or more studies were subjected to meta-analysis. For the meta-analysis, a random-effects model was used to calculate the summary relative risks (SRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Heterogeneity across studies was presented using the Higgins I square value from Cochran's Q test. Among the 12 group I pharmaceuticals selected, three involved a single study [etoposide, thiotepa, and mustargen + oncovin + procarbazine + prednisone (MOPP)], seven had two or more studies [busulfan, cyclosporine, azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, methoxsalen + ultraviolet (UV) radiation therapy, melphalan, and chlorambucil], and two did not have any studies [etoposide + bleomycin + cisplatin and treosulfan]. Cyclosporine and azathioprine reported increased skin cancer risk (SRR = 1.32, 95% CI 1.07-1.62; SRR = 1.56, 95% CI 1.25-1.93) compared to non-use. Cyclophosphamide increased bladder and hematologic cancer risk (SRR = 2.87, 95% CI 1.32-6.23; SRR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.65-3.58). Busulfan increased hematologic cancer risk (SRR = 6.71, 95% CI 2.49-18.08); melphalan was associated with hematologic cancer (SRR = 4.43, 95% CI 1.30-15.15). In the systematic review, methoxsalen + UV and MOPP were associated with an increased risk of skin and lung cancer, respectively. Our results can enhance persistent surveillance of group I pharmaceutical use, establish novel clinical strategies for patients with indications, and provide evidence for re-categorizing current group I pharmaceuticals into other groups.
Topics: Humans; Etoposide; Methoxsalen; Azathioprine; Melphalan; Busulfan; Neoplasms; Hematologic Neoplasms; Cyclophosphamide; Cyclosporins; Pharmaceutical Preparations
PubMed: 38172159
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-50602-6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2022Chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGvHD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation, occurring in 6% to 65% of the... (Review)
Review
Extracorporeal photopheresis versus alternative treatment for chronic graft-versus-host disease after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation in children and adolescents.
BACKGROUND
Chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGvHD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation, occurring in 6% to 65% of the paediatric recipients. Currently, the therapeutic mainstay for cGvHD is treatment with corticosteroids, frequently combined with other immunosuppressive agents in people with steroid-refractory manifestations. There is no established standard treatment for steroid-refractory cGvHD. The therapeutic options for these patients include extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP), an immunomodulatory treatment that involves ex vivo collection of mononuclear cells from peripheral blood, exposure to the photoactive agent 8-methoxypsoralen, ultraviolet radiation and re-infusion of the processed cell product. The mechanisms of action of ECP are not completely understood. This is the second update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2014 and first updated in 2015.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ECP for the management of cGvHD in children and adolescents after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2021), MEDLINE (PubMed) and Embase databases from their inception to 25 January 2021. We searched the reference lists of potentially relevant studies without any language restrictions. We searched five conference proceedings and nine clinical trial registries on 9 November 2020 and 12 November 2020, respectively.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We aimed to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ECP with or without alternative treatment versus alternative treatment alone in children and adolescents with cGvHD after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed the study selection. We resolved disagreements in the selection of trials by consultation with a third review author.
MAIN RESULTS
We found no studies meeting the criteria for inclusion in this 2021 review update.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We could not evaluate the efficacy of ECP in the treatment of cGvHD in children and adolescents after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation since the second review update again found no RCTs. Current recommendations are based on retrospective or observational studies only. Thus, ideally, ECP should be applied in the context of controlled trials only. However, performing RCTs in this population will be challenging due to the limited number of eligible participants, variable disease presentation and the lack of well-defined response criteria. International collaboration, multicentre trials and appropriate funding for such trials will be needed. If treatment decisions based on clinical data are made in favour of ECP, recipients should be carefully monitored for beneficial and harmful effects. In addition, efforts should be made to share this information with other clinicians, for example by setting up registries for children and adolescents treated with ECP.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Chronic Disease; Graft vs Host Disease; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Methoxsalen; Photopheresis; Steroids
PubMed: 35679154
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009898.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Acute graft-versus-host disease (aGvHD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), occurring in 8% to 85% of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Acute graft-versus-host disease (aGvHD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), occurring in 8% to 85% of paediatric recipients. Currently, the therapeutic mainstay for aGvHD is treatment with corticosteroids. However, there is no established standard treatment for steroid-refractory aGvHD. Extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) is a type of immunomodulatory method amongst different therapeutic options that involves ex vivo collection of peripheral mononuclear cells, exposure to the photoactive agent 8-methoxypsoralen and ultraviolet-A radiation, and reinfusion of these treated blood cells to the patient. The mechanisms of action of ECP are not completely understood. This is the second update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2014 and updated in 2015.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ECP for the management of aGvHD in children and adolescents after HSCT.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed) and Embase (Ovid) databases from their inception to 25 January 2021. We searched the reference lists of potentially relevant studies without any language restrictions. We searched five conference proceedings and nine clinical trial registries on 9 November 2020 and 12 November 2020, respectively.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ECP with or without standard treatment versus standard treatment alone in children and adolescents with aGvHD after HSCT.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed the study selection. We resolved disagreement in the selection of trials by consultation with a third review author.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified no additional studies in the 2021 review update, so there are still no studies that meet the criteria for inclusion in this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The efficacy of ECP in the treatment of aGvHD in children and adolescents after HSCT is unknown, and its use should be restricted to within the context of RCTs. Such studies should address a comparison of ECP alone or in combination with standard treatment versus standard treatment alone. The 2021 review update brought about no additions to these conclusions.
Topics: Adolescent; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Child; Graft vs Host Disease; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Methoxsalen; Photopheresis; Steroids
PubMed: 36166494
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009759.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2017Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization guidelines for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. While in the past pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, views on children's pain have changed over time, and relief of pain is now seen as important.We designed a suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol) in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions.As the leading cause of morbidity in the world today, chronic disease (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Chronic pain (that is pain lasting three months or longer) can arise in the paediatric population in a variety of pathophysiological classifications (nociceptive, neuropathic, or idiopathic) from genetic conditions, nerve damage pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and chronic abdominal pain, as well as for other unknown reasons.Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are used to treat pain, reduce fever, and for their anti-inflammation properties. They are commonly used within paediatric pain management. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are currently licensed for use in Western countries, however they are not approved for infants under three months old. The main adverse effects include renal impairment and gastrointestinal issues. Common side effects in children include diarrhoea, headache, nausea, constipation, rash, dizziness, and abdominal pain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of NSAIDs used to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 6 September 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, as well as online clinical trial registries.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, of any dose and any route, treating chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, comparing any NSAID with placebo or an active comparator.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. We assessed GRADE and created three 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven studies with a total of 1074 participants (aged 2 to 18 years) with chronic juvenile polyarthritis or chronic juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. All seven studies compared an NSAID with an active comparator. None of the studies were placebo controlled. No two studies investigated the same type of NSAID compared with another. We were unable to perform a meta-analysis.Risk of bias varied. For randomisation and allocation concealment, one study was low risk and six studies were unclear risk. For blinding of participants and personnel, three studies were low risk and four studies were unclear to high risk. For blinding of outcome assessors, all studies were unclear risk. For attrition, four studies were low risk and three studies were unclear risk. For selective reporting, four studies were low risk, two studies were unclear risk, and one study was high risk. For size, three studies were unclear risk and four studies were high risk. For other potential sources of bias, seven studies were low risk. Primary outcomesThree studies reported participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater, showing no statistically significant difference in pain scores between meloxicam and naproxen, celecoxib and naproxen, or rofecoxib and naproxen (P > 0.05) (low-quality evidence).One study reported participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater, showing no statistically significant difference in pain scores between low-dose meloxicam (0.125 mg/kg) and high-dose meloxicam (0.25 mg/kg) when compared to naproxen 10 mg/kg (P > 0.05) (low-quality evidence).One study reported Patient Global Impression of Change, showing 'very much improved' in 85% of ibuprofen and 90% of aspirin participants (low-quality evidence). Secondary outcomesAll seven studies reported adverse events. Participants reporting an adverse event (one or more per person) by drug were: aspirin 85/202; fenoprofen 28/49; ibuprofen 40/45; indomethacin 9/30; ketoprofen 9/30; meloxicam 18/47; naproxen 44/202; and rofecoxib 47/209 (very low-quality evidence).All seven studies reported withdrawals due to adverse events. Participants withdrawn due to an adverse event by drug were: aspirin 16/120; celecoxib 10/159; fenoprofen 0/49; ibuprofen 0/45; indomethacin 0/30; ketoprofen 0/30; meloxicam 10/147; naproxen 17/285; and rofecoxib 3/209 (very low-quality evidence).All seven studies reported serious adverse events. Participants experiencing a serious adverse event by drug were: aspirin 13/120; celecoxib 5/159; fenoprofen 0/79; ketoprofen 0/30; ibuprofen 4/45; indomethacin 0/30; meloxicam 11/147; naproxen 10/285; and rofecoxib 0/209 (very low-quality evidence).There were few or no data for our remaining secondary outcomes: Carer Global Impression of Change; requirement for rescue analgesia; sleep duration and quality; acceptability of treatment; physical functioning as defined by validated scales; and quality of life as defined by validated scales (very low-quality evidence).We rated the overall quality of the evidence (GRADE rating) for our primary and secondary outcomes as very low because there were limited data from studies and no opportunity for a meta-analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We identified only a small number of studies, with insufficient data for analysis.As we could undertake no meta-analysis, we are unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of NSAIDs to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. Similarly, we cannot comment on our remaining secondary outcomes: Carer Global Impression of Change; requirement for rescue analgesia; sleep duration and quality; acceptability of treatment; physical functioning; and quality of life.We know from adult randomised controlled trials that some NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen, naproxen, and aspirin, can be effective in certain chronic pain conditions.
Topics: Adolescent; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Arthritis, Juvenile; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Aspirin; Celecoxib; Child; Child, Preschool; Chronic Disease; Chronic Pain; Fenoprofen; Humans; Ibuprofen; Lactones; Meloxicam; Methoxsalen; Naproxen; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sulfones; Thiazines; Thiazoles
PubMed: 28770976
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012537.pub2