-
Burns : Journal of the International... Aug 2024To evaluate the efficacy of therapeutic interventions on pediatric burn patients' height, weight, body composition, and muscle strength. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy of therapeutic interventions on pediatric burn patients' height, weight, body composition, and muscle strength.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science up to March 2021. Eligible interventional studies reported metrics on the height, weight, body composition, or muscle strength of pediatric burn patients in a peer-reviewed journal. Meta-analyses were performed if ≥ 2 trials of clinical homogeneity reported on an outcome measure at the same time point post-burn.
RESULTS
Twenty-six interventional studies were identified, including twenty-two randomised controlled trials and four non-randomised trials. Most studies were conducted by a single institution. On average, the burn covered 45.3% ( ± 9.9) of the total body surface area. Three categories of interventions could be distinguished: rehabilitative exercise programs, pharmacologic agents, and nutrition support.
CONCLUSIONS
Each of the interventions had a positive effect on height, weight, body composition, or muscle strength. The decision to initiate an intervention should be made on a case-by-case basis following careful consideration of the benefits and risks. In future research, it is important to evaluate the heterogeneity of intervention effects and whether participation in an intervention allowed pediatric burn patients to reach the physical and functional status of healthy peers.
Topics: Humans; Burns; Body Composition; Child; Muscle Strength; Body Weight; Body Height; Exercise Therapy; Nutritional Support; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38580580
DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2024.03.012 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2020Different bone-modifying agents like bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL)-inhibitors are used as supportive treatment in men... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Different bone-modifying agents like bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL)-inhibitors are used as supportive treatment in men with prostate cancer and bone metastases to prevent skeletal-related events (SREs). SREs such as pathologic fractures, spinal cord compression, surgery and radiotherapy to the bone, and hypercalcemia lead to morbidity, a poor performance status, and impaired quality of life. Efficacy and acceptability of the bone-targeted therapy is therefore of high relevance. Until now recommendations in guidelines on which bone-modifying agents should be used are rare and inconsistent.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of bisphosphonates and RANKL-inhibitors as supportive treatment for prostate cancer patients with bone metastases and to generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to their safety and efficacy using network meta-analysis.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified studies by electronically searching the bibliographic databases Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase until 23 March 2020. We searched the Cochrane Library and various trial registries and screened abstracts of conference proceedings and reference lists of identified trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials comparing different bisphosphonates and RANKL-inihibitors with each other or against no further treatment or placebo for men with prostate cancer and bone metastases. We included men with castration-restrictive and castration-sensitive prostate cancer and conducted subgroup analyses according to this criteria.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of trials. We defined proportion of participants with pain response and the adverse events renal impairment and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) as the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes were SREs in total and each separately (see above), mortality, quality of life, and further adverse events such as grade 3 to 4 adverse events, hypocalcemia, fatigue, diarrhea, and nausea. We conducted network meta-analysis and generated treatment rankings for all outcomes, except quality of life due to insufficient reporting on this outcome. We compiled ranking plots to compare single outcomes of efficacy against outcomes of acceptability of the bone-modifying agents. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for the main outcomes using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-five trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Twenty-one trials could be considered in the quantitative analysis, of which six bisphosphonates (zoledronic acid, risedronate, pamidronate, alendronate, etidronate, or clodronate) were compared with each other, the RANKL-inhibitor denosumab, or no treatment/placebo. By conducting network meta-analysis we were able to compare all of these reported agents directly and/or indirectly within the network for each outcome. In the abstract only the comparisons of zoledronic acid and denosumab against the main comparator (no treatment/placebo) are described for outcomes that were predefined as most relevant and that also appear in the 'Summary of findings' table. Other results, as well as results of subgroup analyses regarding castration status of participants, are displayed in the Results section of the full text. Treatment with zoledronic acid probably neither reduces nor increases the proportion of participants with pain response when compared to no treatment/placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 2.32; per 1000 participants 121 more (19 less to 349 more); moderate-certainty evidence; network based on 4 trials including 1013 participants). For this outcome none of the trials reported results for the comparison with denosumab. The adverse event renal impairment probably occurs more often when treated with zoledronic acid compared to treatment/placebo (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.45; per 1000 participants 78 more (10 more to 180 more); moderate-certainty evidence; network based on 6 trials including 1769 participants). Results for denosumab could not be included for this outcome, since zero events cannot be considered in the network meta-analysis, therefore it does not appear in the ranking. Treatment with denosumab results in increased occurrence of the adverse event ONJ (RR 3.45, 95% CI 1.06 to 11.24; per 1000 participants 30 more (1 more to 125 more); high-certainty evidence; 4 trials, 3006 participants) compared to no treatment/placebo. When comparing zoledronic acid to no treatment/placebo, the confidence intervals include the possibility of benefit or harm, therefore treatment with zoledronic acid probably neither reduces nor increases ONJ (RR 1.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 4.87; per 1000 participants 11 more (3 less to 47 more); moderate-certainty evidence; network based on 4 trials including 3006 participants). Compared to no treatment/placebo, treatment with zoledronic acid (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97) and denosumab (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.96) may result in a reduction of the total number of SREs (per 1000 participants 75 fewer (131 fewer to 14 fewer) and 131 fewer (215 fewer to 19 fewer); both low-certainty evidence; 12 trials, 5240 participants). Treatment with zoledronic acid and denosumab likely neither reduces nor increases mortality when compared to no treatment/placebo (zoledronic acid RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.01; per 1000 participants 48 fewer (97 fewer to 5 more); denosumab RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.11; per 1000 participants 34 fewer (111 fewer to 54 more); both moderate-certainty evidence; 13 trials, 5494 participants). Due to insufficient reporting, no network meta-analysis was possible for the outcome quality of life. One study with 1904 participants comparing zoledronic acid and denosumab showed that more zoledronic acid-treated participants than denosumab-treated participants experienced a greater than or equal to five-point decrease in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General total scores over a range of 18 months (average relative difference = 6.8%, range -9.4% to 14.6%) or worsening of cancer-related quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
When considering bone-modifying agents as supportive treatment, one has to balance between efficacy and acceptability. Results suggest that Zoledronic acid likely increases both the proportion of participants with pain response, and the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events However, more trials with head-to-head comparisons including all potential agents are needed to draw the whole picture and proof the results of this analysis.
Topics: Adult; Alendronate; Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Bisphosphonate-Associated Osteonecrosis of the Jaw; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Bone Neoplasms; Clodronic Acid; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Etidronic Acid; Humans; Male; Network Meta-Analysis; Pamidronate; Prostatic Neoplasms; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant; Quality of Life; RANK Ligand; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risedronic Acid; Zoledronic Acid
PubMed: 33270906
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013020.pub2 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Nov 2021Bone metastasis is a common complication in patients with advanced malignant tumors and seriously impairs the quality of life of patients. Bisphosphonates are effective... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Bone metastasis is a common complication in patients with advanced malignant tumors and seriously impairs the quality of life of patients. Bisphosphonates are effective drugs for the treatment of bone metastasis pain. Incardronate disodium belongs to the 3rd generation of bisphosphonates. The efficacy and safety of bisphosphonates were explored using a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
The databases PubMed (2000 to August 2021), EMBASE (2000 to August 2021), Cochrane library (August 2021), and CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, 2000 to August 2021) were searched. Randomized controlled studies involving patients being treated with incardronate for bone metastasis pain were included in the literature search. After screening and risk of bias assessment based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Stata 16.0 software was used for analysis.
RESULTS
The seven articles included in this study involved a total of 510 patients. Meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference between incardronate and pamidronate disodium in the effectiveness of treating bone metastasis pain [odds ratio (OR) =1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78-1.34, Z=0.188, P=0.851). The incidence of febrile adverse reactions from incardronate was significantly lower than pamidronate disodium (OR =0.58, 95% CI: 0.39-0.86, Z=-2.727, P=0.006). The total incidence of adverse reactions from incardronate was significantly lower than pamidronate disodium (OR =0.58, 95% CI: 0.40-0.85, Z=-2.851, P=0.004).
DISCUSSION
The use of incardronate in the treatment of bone metastasis pain due to malignant tumors had comparable efficacy to the second-generation bisphosphonate pamidronate disodium. However, incardronate had fewer adverse reactions than pamidronate disodium.
Topics: Bone Neoplasms; Cancer Pain; Diphosphonates; Humans; Pamidronate; Quality of Life
PubMed: 34872319
DOI: 10.21037/apm-21-3056 -
The Oncologist Apr 2015Complications from skeletal-related events (SREs) constitute a challenge in the care of cancer patients with bone metastasis (BM). (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Systematic literature review and network meta-analysis comparing bone-targeted agents for the prevention of skeletal-related events in cancer patients with bone metastasis.
BACKGROUND
Complications from skeletal-related events (SREs) constitute a challenge in the care of cancer patients with bone metastasis (BM).
OBJECTIVES
This study evaluated the comparative effectiveness of pamidronate, ibandronate, zoledronate, and denosumab in reducing the morbidity of SREs in cancer patients with BM.
METHODS
Medline (1948 to January 2014), Embase (1980 to January 2014), the Cochrane Library (2014 issue 1), and Web of Science with Conference Proceedings (1970 to January 2014) were searched. Only randomized controlled trials assessing denosumab, bisphosphonates, or placebo in cancer patients with BM were included. The primary outcomes were SREs and SREs by type. The network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed with a random-effects Bayesian model.
RESULTS
The NMA included 14 trials with 10,192 patients. Denosumab was superior to placebo in reducing the risk of SREs (odds ratio [OR]: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31-0.75), followed by zoledronate (OR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.41-0.77) and pamidronate (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.41-0.72). Ibandronate compared with placebo could not reduce the risk of SREs. Denosumab was superior to placebo in reducing the risk of pathologic fractures (OR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.32-0.79), followed by zoledronate (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.43-0.86). Denosumab was superior to placebo in reducing the risk of radiation (OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.35-0.75), followed by pamidronate (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.52-0.86) and zoledronate (OR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.52-0.96).
CONCLUSION
This NMA showed that denosumab, zoledronate, and pamidronate were generally effective in preventing SREs in cancer patients with BM. Denosumab and zoledronate were also associated with reductions in the risk of pathologic fractures and radiation compared with placebo. Denosumab was shown to be the most effective of the bone-targeted agents.
Topics: Bone Density Conservation Agents; Bone Diseases; Bone Neoplasms; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Humans; Ibandronic Acid; Imidazoles; Neoplasms; Pamidronate; Spinal Cord Compression; Treatment Outcome; Zoledronic Acid
PubMed: 25732263
DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2014-0328