-
International Journal of Clinical... Nov 2020Management of non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) has undergone a paradigm shift with next-generation androgen receptor inhibitors. However,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Management of non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) has undergone a paradigm shift with next-generation androgen receptor inhibitors. However, direct comparative data are not available to inform treatment decisions and/or guideline recommendations. Therefore, we performed network meta-analysis to indirectly compare the efficacy and safety of currently available treatments. Multiple databases were searched for articles published before June 2020. Studies that compared overall and/or metastasis-free and/or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression-free survival (OS/MFS/PSA-PFS) and/or adverse events (AEs) in nmCRPC patients were considered eligible. Three studies (n = 4117) met our eligibility criteria. Formal network meta-analyses were conducted. For MFS, apalutamide, darolutamide, and enzalutamide were significantly more effective than placebo, and apalutamide emerged as the best option (P score: 0.8809). Apalutamide [hazard ratio (HR): 0.85, 95% credible interval (CrI): 0.77-0.94] and enzalutamide (HR: 0.86, 95% CrI: 0.78-0.95) were both significantly more effective than darolutamide. For PSA-PFS, all three agents were statistically superior to placebo, and apalutamide emerged as the likely preferred option (P score: 1.000). Apalutamide (HR: 0.71, 95% CrI: 0.69-0.74) and enzalutamide (HR: 0.76, 95% CrI: 0.74-0.79) were both significantly more effective than darolutamide. For AEs (including all AEs, grade 3 or grade 4 AEs, grade 5 AEs, and discontinuation rates), darolutamide was the likely best option. Apalutamide and enzalutamide appear to be more efficacious agents for therapy of nmCRPC, while darolutamide appears to have the most favorable tolerability profile. These findings may facilitate individualized treatment strategies and inform future direct comparative trials.
Topics: Androgen Receptor Antagonists; Antineoplastic Agents; Benzamides; Humans; Kallikreins; Male; Network Meta-Analysis; Nitriles; Phenylthiohydantoin; Progression-Free Survival; Proportional Hazards Models; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant; Pyrazoles; Thiohydantoins; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32924096
DOI: 10.1007/s10147-020-01777-9 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2014Vaginal dilation therapy is advocated after pelvic radiotherapy to prevent stenosis (abnormal narrowing of the vagina), but can be uncomfortable and psychologically... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Vaginal dilation therapy is advocated after pelvic radiotherapy to prevent stenosis (abnormal narrowing of the vagina), but can be uncomfortable and psychologically distressing.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of different types of vaginal dilation methods offered to women treated by pelvic radiotherapy for cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
Searches included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2013, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1950 to June week 2, 2013), EMBASE (1980 to 2013 week 24) and CINAHL (1982 to 2013).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Comparative data of any type, which evaluated dilation or penetration of the vagina after pelvic radiotherapy treatment for cancer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed whether potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria. We found no trials and therefore analysed no data.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified no studies for inclusion in the original review or for this update. However, we felt that some studies that were excluded warranted discussion. These included one randomised trial (RCT), which showed no improvement in sexual scores associated with encouraging women to practise dilation therapy; a recent small RCT that did not show any advantage to dilation over vibration therapy during radiotherapy; two non-randomised comparative studies; and five correlation studies. One of these showed that objective measurements of vaginal elasticity and length were not linked to dilation during radiotherapy, but the study lacked power. One study showed that women who dilated tolerated a larger dilator, but the risk of objectivity and bias with historical controls was high. Another study showed that the vaginal measurements increased in length by a mean of 3 cm after dilation was introduced 6 to 10 weeks after radiotherapy, but there was no control group; another case series showed the opposite. Three recent studies showed less stenosis associated with prophylactic dilation after radiotherapy. One small case series suggested that dilation years after radiotherapy might restore the vagina to a functional length.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no reliable evidence to show that routine, regular vaginal dilation during radiotherapy treatment prevents stenosis or improves quality of life. Several observational studies have examined the effect of dilation therapy after radiotherapy. They suggest that frequent dilation practice is associated with lower rates of self reported stenosis. This could be because dilation is effective or because women with a healthy vagina are more likely to comply with dilation therapy instructions compared to women with strictures. We would normally suggest that a RCT is needed to distinguish between a casual and causative link, but pilot studies highlight many reasons why RCT methodology is challenging in this area.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Benzydamine; Brachytherapy; Constriction, Pathologic; Dilatation; Estrogens; Female; Humans; Hyperbaric Oxygenation; Pelvis; Radiation Injuries; Radiotherapy; Rupture; Sexual Dysfunction, Physiological; Time Factors; Vagina
PubMed: 25198150
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007291.pub3 -
Pain Nov 2022Burrowing behaviour is used to assess pain-associated behaviour in laboratory rodents. To gain insight into how models of disease-associated persistent pain and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Burrowing behaviour is used to assess pain-associated behaviour in laboratory rodents. To gain insight into how models of disease-associated persistent pain and analgesics affect burrowing behaviour, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that assessed burrowing behaviour. A systematic search in March 2020 and update in September 2020 was conducted in 4 databases. Study design characteristics and experimental data were extracted, followed by a random-effects meta-analysis. We explored the association between burrowing and monofilament-induced limb withdrawal. Dose response relationship was investigated for some analgesics. Forty-five studies were included in the meta-analysis, in which 16 model types and 14 drug classes were used. Most experiments used rat (79%) and male (72%) animals. Somatic inflammation and trauma-induced neuropathy models were associated with reduced burrowing behaviour. Analgesics (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug and gabapentinoids) attenuated burrowing deficits in these models. Reporting of measures to reduce risk of bias was unclear except for randomisation which was high. There was not a correlation ( R2 = 0.1421) between burrowing and monofilament-induced limb withdrawal. Opioids, gabapentin, and naproxen showed reduced burrowing behaviour at high doses, whereas ibuprofen and celecoxib showed opposite trend. The findings indicate that burrowing could be used to assess pain-associated behaviour. We support the use of a portfolio of composite measures including spontaneous and stimulus-evoked tests. The information collected here could help in designing experiments involving burrowing assessment in models of disease-associated pain.
Topics: Analgesics; Animals; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Behavior, Animal; Celecoxib; Disease Models, Animal; Gabapentin; Ibuprofen; Male; Naproxen; Pain; Rats; Rodentia
PubMed: 35353780
DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002632 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2015Myelofibrosis is a bone marrow disorder characterized by excessive production of reticulin and collagen fiber deposition caused by hematological and non-hematological... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Myelofibrosis is a bone marrow disorder characterized by excessive production of reticulin and collagen fiber deposition caused by hematological and non-hematological disorders. The prognosis of myelofibrosis is poor and treatment is mainly palliative. Janus kinase inhibitors are a novel strategy to treat people with myelofibrosis.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the clinical benefits and harms of Janus kinase-1 and Janus kinase-2 inhibitors for treating myelofibrosis secondary to hematological or non-hematological conditions.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 11), Ovid MEDLINE (from 1946 to 13 November 2014), EMBASE (from 1980 to 12 January 2013), and LILACS (from 1982 to 20 November 2014). We searched WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and The metaRegister of Controlled Trials. We also searched for conference proceedings of the American Society of Hematology (from 2009 to October 2013), European Hematology Association (from 2009 to October 2013), American Society of Clinical Oncology (from 2009 to October 2013), and European Society of Medical Oncology (from 2009 to October 2013). We included searches in FDA, European Medicines Agency, and Epistemonikos. We handsearched the references of all identified included trials, and relevant review articles. We did not apply any language restrictions. Two review authors independently screened search results.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized clinical trials comparing Janus kinase-1 and Janus kinase-2 inhibitors with placebo or other treatments. Both previously treated and treatment naive patients were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for overall survival, progression-free survival and leukemia-free survival, risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI for reduction in spleen size and adverse events binary data, and standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% CI for continuous data (health-related quality of life). Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included trials. Primary outcomes were overall survival, progression-free survival and adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two trials involving 528 participants, comparing ruxolitinib with placebo or best available therapy (BAT). As the two included trials had different comparators we did not pool the data. The confidence in the results estimates of these trials was low due to the bias in their design, and their limited sample sizes that resulted in imprecise results.There is low quality evidence for the effect of ruxolitinib on survival when compared with placebo at 51 weeks of follow-up (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.98) and compared with BAT at 48 weeks of follow-up (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.47). Similarly there was very low quality evidence for the effect of ruxolitinib on progression free survival compared with BAT (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.39).There is low quality evidence for the effect of ruxolitinib in terms of quality of life. Compared with placebo, the drug achieved a greater proportion of patients with a significant reduction of symptom scores (RR 8.82, 95% CI 4.40 to 17.69), and treated patients with ruxolitinib obtained greater MFSAF scores at the end of follow-up (MD -87.90, 95% CI -139.58 to -36.22). An additional trial showed significant differences in EORTC QLQ-C30 scores when compared ruxolitinib with best available therapy (MD 7.60, 95% CI 0.35 to 14.85).The effect of ruxolitinib on reduction in the spleen size of participants compared with placebo or BAT was uncertain (versus placebo: RR 64.58, 95% CI 9.08 to 459.56, low quality evidence; versus BAT: RR 41.78, 95% CI 2.61 to 669.75, low quality evidence).There is low quality evidence for the effect of the drug compared with placebo on anemia (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.62 to 3.41), neutropenia (RR 3.57, 95% CI 1.02 to 12.55) and thrombocytopenia (RR 9.74, 95% CI 2.32 to 40.96). Ruxolitinib did not result in differences versus BAT in the risk of anemia (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.99, low quality evidence) or thrombocytopenia (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.44 to 3.28, low quality evidence). The risk of non-hematologic grade 3 or 4 adverse events (including fatigue, arthralgia, nausea, diarrhea, extremity pain and pyrexia) was similar when ruxolitinib was compared with placebo or BAT. The rate of neutropenia comparing ruxolitinib with standard medical treatment was not reported by the trial.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Currently, there is insufficient evidence to allow any conclusions regarding the efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib for treating myelofibrosis. The findings of this Cochrane review should be interpreted with caution as they are based on trials sponsored by industry, and include a small number of patients. Unless powered randomized clinical trials provide strong evidence of a treatment effect, and the trade-off between potential benefits and harms is established, clinicians should be cautious when administering ruxolitinib for treating patients with myelofibrosis.
Topics: Humans; Janus Kinase 1; Janus Kinase 2; Nitriles; Primary Myelofibrosis; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25860512
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010298.pub2 -
The Canadian Journal of Infectious... 2022Since the beginning of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) disease outbreak, there has been an increasing interest in discovering potential therapeutic agents for this... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Since the beginning of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) disease outbreak, there has been an increasing interest in discovering potential therapeutic agents for this disease. In this regard, we conducted a systematic review through an overview of drug development (in silico, in vitro, and in vivo) for treating COVID-19.
METHODS
A systematic search was carried out in major databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, and Google Scholar from December 2019 to March 2021. A combination of the following terms was used: coronavirus, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, drug design, drug development, In silico, In vitro, and In vivo. A narrative synthesis was performed as a qualitative method for the data synthesis of each outcome measure.
RESULTS
A total of 2168 articles were identified through searching databases. Finally, 315 studies (266 in silico, 34 in vitro, and 15 in vivo) were included. In studies with in silico approach, 98 article study repurposed drug and 91 studies evaluated herbal medicine on COVID-19. Among 260 drugs repurposed by the computational method, the best results were observed with saquinavir ( = 9), ritonavir ( = 8), and lopinavir ( = 6). Main protease ( = 154) following spike glycoprotein ( = 62) and other nonstructural protein of virus ( = 45) was among the most studied targets. Doxycycline, chlorpromazine, azithromycin, heparin, bepridil, and glycyrrhizic acid showed both in silico and in vitro inhibitory effects against SARS-CoV-2.
CONCLUSION
The preclinical studies of novel drug design for COVID-19 focused on main protease and spike glycoprotein as targets for antiviral development. From evaluated structures, saquinavir, ritonavir, eucalyptus, Tinospora cordifolia, aloe, green tea, curcumin, pyrazole, and triazole derivatives in in silico studies and doxycycline, chlorpromazine, and heparin from in vitro and human monoclonal antibodies from in vivo studies showed promised results regarding efficacy. It seems that due to the nature of COVID-19 disease, finding some drugs with multitarget antiviral actions and anti-inflammatory potential is valuable and some herbal medicines have this potential.
PubMed: 36199815
DOI: 10.1155/2022/2044282 -
PloS One 2022Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for haematological disorders. Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), a cause of morbidity and mortality is treated with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for haematological disorders. Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), a cause of morbidity and mortality is treated with corticosteroids. However, patients with steroid-refractory GVHD after HSCT have a poor prognosis. Ruxolitinib, a selective Janus kinase inhibitor, is a novel treatment strategy for steroid-refractory GVHD.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy of ruxolitinib for the treatment of steroid-refractory GVHD and analyse its adverse effects.
STUDY DESIGN
Meta-analysis.
SEARCH METHODS
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs of ruxolitinib-based therapy in patients with steroid-refractory GVHD were found in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science in March 2021. Outcomes included overall response rate, survival, and adverse effects. The Methodological Index for Non-randomised Studies (MINORS) and the Cochrane collaboration risk-of-bias tool were used to assess methodological quality. Funnel plots, Egger's test, and the trim and fill method were used to assess publication bias.
RESULTS
In total, 1470 studies were identified; 19 studies (17 non-RCTs, 2 RCTs) involving 1358 patients met our inclusion criteria. Survival rates at the longest follow-up in non-RCTs, were 57.5% (95% CI 46.9-67.4) and 80.3% (95% CI 69.7-87.9) for acute GVHD (aGVHD) and chronic GVHD (cGVHD), respectively. In non-RCTs, the overall response was 74.9% (95% CI 66.6-81.8, I2 = 49%) in aGVHD and 73.1% (95% CI 62.5-81.6, I2 = 49%) in cGVHD. In aGVHD, the response rates were gastrointestinal, 61.4-90.2%; skin, 52.5-80.6%; and liver, 41.8-71.8%. In cGVHD, the response rates were gastrointestinal, 30.1-70.4%; skin, 30.1-84.4%; lung, 27.0-83.0%; and mouth 3.5-98.1%. In addition, a lower aGVHD grade and moderate cGVHD were associated with a better clinical response. Common adverse events were cytopenia and infectious complications.
CONCLUSIONS
Our systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that ruxolitinib therapy could be a potentially effective and safe treatment for patients with steroid-refractory GVHD.
Topics: Graft vs Host Disease; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Nitriles; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines; Steroids
PubMed: 35905125
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271979 -
Respiratory Medicine Oct 2022There are conflicting reports on the results of several of the latest clinical trials related to the use of baricitinib in the management of COVID-19 patients. The aim... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
There are conflicting reports on the results of several of the latest clinical trials related to the use of baricitinib in the management of COVID-19 patients. The aim of the current systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of baricitinib in COVID-19 patients.
METHODS
Databases like ScienceDirect, PubMed/Medline, Publons, Google Scholar and other sources like ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane, medRxiv, Research Square and reference lists were thoroughly searched.
RESULTS
Fifteen (15) articles which met the inclusion criteria were qualitatively and quantitatively analysed. Based on Cochrane and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) risk of bias (RoB) analyses, 14/15 articles are grouped as high-quality. Meta-analyses revealed that randomised control trials (RCTs) and non-randomised control trials (nRCTs) statistically significantly reduced the mortality rate in COVID-19 patients, with a risk ratio (RR) in the fixed-effect model was RR = 0.64 [95% CI: 0.51 to 0.79; p < 0.0001] and RR = 0.58 [95% CI: 0.45 to 0.73; p < 0.00001], respectively, with insignificant heterogeneity and no publication bias found. For block/reduce disease progression (BDP), baricitinib did not statistically significantly reduce disease progression for RCTs. The RR in the random effect model was RR = 0.80 [95% CI: 0.58 to 1.10: p = 0.17], with significant heterogeneity, where I was 60%. On the other hand, baricitinib statistically significantly reduced disease progression in nRCTs, as the RR of the fixed effect model was RR = 0.54 [95% CI: 0.37 to 0.78; p = 0.001] with insignificant heterogeneity.
CONCLUSION
The current meta-analyses revealed that baricitinib statistically significantly reduced mortality rate and disease progression in COVID-19 patients.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42021281556.
Topics: Azetidines; Disease Progression; Humans; Purines; Pyrazoles; SARS-CoV-2; Sulfonamides; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 36150282
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2022.106986 -
Current Oncology (Toronto, Ont.) Aug 2022The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of celecoxib, a selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor, in addition to standard... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of celecoxib, a selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor, in addition to standard anticancer therapy. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy and safety of celecoxib-combined cancer therapy were systematically searched in PubMed and Embase databases. The endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), disease-free survival (DFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), pathological complete response (pCR), and adverse events (AEs). The results of 30 RCTs containing 9655 patients showed limited benefits in celecoxib-combined cancer therapy. However, celecoxib-combined palliative therapy prolonged PFS in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) wild-type patients (HR = 0.57, 95%CI = 0.35-0.94). Moreover, despite a slight increase in thrombocytopenia (RR = 1.35, 95%CI = 1.08-1.69), there was no increase in other toxicities. Celecoxib combined with adjuvant therapy indicated a better OS (HR = 0.850, 95%CI = 0.725-0.996). Furthermore, celecoxib plus neoadjuvant therapy improved the ORR in standard cancer therapy, especially neoadjuvant therapy (overall: RR = 1.13, 95%CI = 1.03-1.23; neoadjuvant therapy: RR = 1.25, 95%CI = 1.09-1.44), but not pCR. Our study indicated that adding celecoxib to palliative therapy prolongs the PFS of EGFR wild-type patients, with good safety profiles. Celecoxib combined with adjuvant therapy prolongs OS, and celecoxib plus neoadjuvant therapy improves the ORR. Thus, celecoxib-combined cancer therapy may be a promising therapy strategy.
Topics: Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Celecoxib; Cyclooxygenase 2; ErbB Receptors; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36135051
DOI: 10.3390/curroncol29090482 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine May 2021When it comes to the treatment of aplastic anemia fever, the Guidelines for Aplastic Anemia regards Anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) combined with eltrombopag as the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
When it comes to the treatment of aplastic anemia fever, the Guidelines for Aplastic Anemia regards Anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) combined with eltrombopag as the standard immunosuppressive treatment plan, and ATG is the main mode to treat severe aplastic anemia. A large number of prospective studies and clinical trials have confirmed the clinical application value of eltrombopag in aplastic anemia. Although ATG combined with eltrombopag brings satisfactory treatment results, the safety of long-term use is still unclear. Therefore, more clinical trial studies are needed to verify its safety.
METHODS
Literature in the Chinese and English medical databases was searched using the following search terms: "Antithymocyte globulin", "severed aplastic anemia" and "eltrombopag". Patients in the experimental group were administered ATG combined with eltrombopag and patients in the control group received ATG treatment alone. Rev Man5.3 software was used for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 16 references were included in this meta-analysis. Heterogeneity tests examining total effective rate demonstrated that Chi2 =4.48, df =15, I2=0%<50%, and P=1.00>0.01. The effective rate of the experimental group was higher than that of the control group, with odds ratio (OR) =1.90 and 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35 to 2.68 (Z=3.70, P=0.0002). The heterogeneity test results of the survival rate within 2 years were Chi2 =3.09, df =7, I2=0%<50%, and P=0.88>0.01. The survival rate of the experimental group was higher than that of the control group, with OR =2.54, and 95% CI: 1.58 to 4.09 (Z=3.84, P=0.0001). The heterogeneity test results of the mortality rate were Chi2 =3.49, df =6, I2=0%<50%, and P=0.75>0.01. The mortality rate of the experimental group was lower than that of the control group, with OR =0.48 and 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.70 (Z=3.84, P=0.0001). The heterogeneity test results of the occurrence of side effects were Chi2 =0.12, df =3, I2=0%<50%, P=0.99>0.01. The incidence of side effects in the experimental group was lower than that in the control group, with OR =0.74, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.17 (Z=1.29, P=0.20).
DISCUSSION
This meta-analysis demonstrated that the combination of ATG with eltrombopag in the treatment of SAA is safer and more effective than ATG alone.
Topics: Anemia, Aplastic; Antilymphocyte Serum; Benzoates; Humans; Hydrazines; Prospective Studies; Pyrazoles; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34107711
DOI: 10.21037/apm-21-1049 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2016Pulmonary hypertension is a condition of complex aetiology that culminates in right heart failure and early death. Soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) stimulators are a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pulmonary hypertension is a condition of complex aetiology that culminates in right heart failure and early death. Soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) stimulators are a promising class of agents that have recently gained approval for use.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy of sGC stimulators in pulmonary hypertension.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the reference lists of articles. Searches are current as of 12 February 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving participants with pulmonary hypertension of all ages, severities and durations of treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
AW, MS and RW independently selected studies, assessed evidence quality and extracted data. This process was overseen by RT and SG. All included studies were sponsored by the drug manufacturer.
MAIN RESULTS
Five trials involving 962 participants are included in this review. All trials were of relatively short duration (< 16 weeks). Due to the heterogenous aetiology of pulmonary hypertension in participants, results are best considered according to each pulmonary hypertension subtype.Pooled analysis shows a mean difference (MD) increase in six-minute walking distance (6MWD) of 30.13 metres (95% CI 5.29 to 54.96; participants = 659; studies = 3). On subgroup analysis, for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) there was no effect noted (6MWD; MD 11.91 metres, 95% CI -44.92 to 68.75; participants = 398; studies = 2), and in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) sGC stimulators improved 6MWD by an MD of 45 metres (95% CI 23.87 to 66.13; participants = 261; studies = 1). Data for left heart disease-associated PH was not available for pooling. Importantly, when participants receiving phosphodiesterase inhibitors were excluded, sGC stimulators increased 6MWD by a MD of 36 metres in PAH. The second primary outcome, mortality, showed no change on pooled analysis against placebo (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.57, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.80).Pooled secondary outcomes include an increase in World Health Organization (WHO) functional class (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.72; participants = 858; studies = 4), no effect on clinical worsening (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.14; participants = 842; studies = 3), and a reduction in mean pulmonary artery pressure (MD -2.77 mmHg, 95% CI -4.96 to -0.58; participants = 744; studies = 5). There was no significant difference in serious adverse events on pooled analysis (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.90; participants = 818; studies = 5) or when analysed at PAH (MD -3.50, 95% CI -5.54 to -1.46; participants = 344; studies = 1), left heart disease associated subgroups (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.78 to 3.13; participants = 159; studies = 2) or CTEPH subgroups (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.56; participants = 261; studies = 1).It is important to consider the results for PAH in the context of a person who is not also receiving a phosphodiesterase-V inhibitor, a contra-indication to sGC stimulator use. It should also be noted that CTEPH results are applicable to inoperable or recurrent CTEPH only.Evidence was rated according to the GRADE scoring system. One outcome was considered high quality, two were moderate, and eight were of low or very low quality, meaning that for many of the outcomes the true effect could differ substantially from our estimate. There were only minor concerns regarding the risk of bias in these trials, all being RCTs largely following the original protocol. Most trials employed an intention-to-treat analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
sGC stimulators improve pulmonary artery pressures in people with PAH (who are treatment naive or receiving a prostanoid or endothelin antagonist) or those with recurrent or inoperable CTEPH. In these settings this can be achieved without notable complication. However, sGC stimulators should not be taken by people also receiving phosphodiestase-V inhibitors or nitrates due to the risks of hypotension, and there is currently no evidence supporting their use in pulmonary hypertension associated with left heart disease. There is no evidence supporting their use in children. These conclusions are based on data with limitations, including unavailable data from two of the trials.
Topics: Adult; Female; Guanylate Cyclase; Humans; Hypertension, Pulmonary; Male; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Walking
PubMed: 27482837
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011205.pub2