-
BMC Cancer Nov 2023RAS mutations affect prognosis in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and have been identified as strong negative predictive markers for anti-epidermal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
RAS mutations affect prognosis in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and have been identified as strong negative predictive markers for anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody (anti-EGFR mAb) therapy, but many tumors containing wild-type RAS genes still do not respond to these therapies. Some additional biomarkers may have prognostic or predictive roles, but conclusions remain controversial.
METHODS
We performed a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing anti-EGFR mAb therapy with alternative therapy that investigated the prognostic and predictive impact of additional biomarkers in RAS wild-type (wt) mCRC patients. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) and odds ratios (ORs) for objective response rate (ORR) were calculated. The prognostic value of biomarkers was investigated by separately pooling HR and OR for different treatment groups in an individual study. The predictive value was assessed by pooling study interactions between treatment effects and biomarker subgroups.
RESULTS
Thirty publications reporting on eighteen trials were selected, including a total of 13,507 patients. In prognostic analysis, BRAF mutations were associated with poorer PFS [HRs = 3.76 (2.47-5.73) and 2.69 (1.82-3.98)] and OS [HRs = 2.66 (1.95-3.65) and 2.45 (1.55-3.88)] in both the experimental and control arms; low miR-31-3p expression appeared to have longer PFS and OS. In terms of predictive effect, a lack of response to anti-EGFR therapy was observed in patients with BRAF mutant tumors (P < 0.01 for PFS). Patients with tumors with any mutation in the KRAS/NRAS/BRAF/PIK3CA gene also showed similar results compared with all wild-type tumors (P for PFS, OS, and ORR were < 0.01, < 0.01 and 0.01, respectively). While low miR-31-3p expression could predict PFS (P = 0.01) and OS (P = 0.04) benefit. The prognostic and predictive value regarding PIK3CA mutations, PTEN mutations or deletions, EGFR, EREG/AREG, HER2, HER3, and HER4 expression remains uncertain.
CONCLUSIONS
In RAS wt mCRC patients receiving EGFR-targeted therapy, BRAF mutation is a powerful prognostic and therapy-predictive biomarker, with no effect found for PIK3CA mutation, PTEN mutation or deletion, but the combined biomarker KRAS/NRAS/BRAF/PIK3CA mutations predict resistance to anti-EGFR therapy. Low miR-31-3p expression may have positive prognostic and therapy predictive effects. Evidence on the prognostic and predictive roles of EGFR and its ligands, and HER2/3/4 is insufficient.
Topics: Humans; Prognosis; Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf; Colorectal Neoplasms; Proto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras); ErbB Receptors; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Colonic Neoplasms; Rectal Neoplasms; Biomarkers; Class I Phosphatidylinositol 3-Kinases; Mutation; MicroRNAs; Biomarkers, Tumor
PubMed: 37974093
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-023-11600-z -
Rheumatology (Oxford, England) Jul 2024To understand the relative efficacy and safety of bimekizumab, a selective inhibitor of IL-17F in addition to IL-17A, vs other biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study
OBJECTIVES
To understand the relative efficacy and safety of bimekizumab, a selective inhibitor of IL-17F in addition to IL-17A, vs other biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/tsDMARDs) for PsA using network meta-analysis (NMA).
METHODS
A systematic literature review (most recent update conducted on 1 January 2023) identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of b/tsDMARDs in PsA. Bayesian NMAs were conducted for efficacy outcomes at Weeks 12-24 for b/tsDMARD-naïve and TNF inhibitor (TNFi)-experienced patients. Safety at Weeks 12-24 was analysed in a mixed population. Odds ratios (ORs) and differences of mean change with the associated 95% credible interval (CrI) were calculated for the best-fitting models, and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values were calculated to determine relative rank.
RESULTS
The NMA included 41 RCTs for 22 b/tsDMARDs. For minimal disease activity (MDA), bimekizumab ranked 1st in b/tsDMARD-naïve patients and 2nd in TNFi-experienced patients. In b/tsDMARD-naïve patients, bimekizumab ranked 6th, 5th and 3rd for ACR response ACR20/50/70, respectively. In TNFi-experienced patients, bimekizumab ranked 1st, 2nd and 1st for ACR20/50/70, respectively. For Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 90/100, bimekizumab ranked 2nd and 1st in b/tsDMARD-naïve patients, respectively, and 1st and 2nd in TNFi-experienced patients, respectively. Bimekizumab was comparable to b/tsDMARDs for serious adverse events.
CONCLUSION
Bimekizumab ranked favourably among b/tsDMARDs for efficacy on joint, skin and MDA outcomes, and showed comparable safety, suggesting it may be a beneficial treatment option for patients with PsA.
Topics: Humans; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Antirheumatic Agents; Network Meta-Analysis; Treatment Outcome; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38218744
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead705 -
International Journal of Dermatology Aug 2023Biologic agents (also termed biologics) have become an important adjuvant-targeted treatment option in autoimmune blistering disease. We evaluated the efficacy and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Biologic agents (also termed biologics) have become an important adjuvant-targeted treatment option in autoimmune blistering disease. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of newly licensed biologics for the management of pemphigoid using a meta-analysis. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for studies involving pemphigoid patients treated with biological agents (rituximab, dupilumab, omalizumab, or mepolizumab) were searched. The pooled risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to assess the short-term efficacy, adverse event (AE), relapse, and long-term survival. A total of seven studies involving 296 patients were identified. The pooled RRs for short-term effectiveness, AE, relapse, and long-term survival rate in patients treated with biological agents versus systemic corticosteroids were 1.37 (95% CI 0.95-1.97; I = 82%; P = 0.09), 0.54 (95% CI 0.39-0.73; I = 13%; P = 0.005), 1.36 (95% CI 0.95-1.96; I = 16.8%; P = 0.19), and 1.08 (95% CI 0.95-1.21; I = 48.1%; P = 0.53), respectively. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis revealed that the RRs of efficacy were 2.10 (95% CI 1.61-2.75; I = 0%; P < 0.00001) for rituximab and 2.07 (95% CI 1.61-2.67; I = 0%; P < 0.00001) for sample size greater than 30. Compared with conventional therapy, biologics treatment was significantly associated with fewer adverse events (P < 0.05), but no significant differences were found for efficacy and relapse (P > 0.05). The findings demonstrate that a biologics-containing regimen could minimize the occurrence of AEs and might display a comparable efficacy and recurrence to that of receiving systemic corticosteroids.
Topics: Humans; Rituximab; Biological Factors; Pemphigoid, Bullous; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Chronic Disease; Biological Products; Recurrence
PubMed: 37212599
DOI: 10.1111/ijd.16678 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Nov 2023Clinical evidence suggests that pregnant women are more vulnerable to COVID-19, since they are at increased risk for disease progression and for obstetric complications,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Clinical evidence suggests that pregnant women are more vulnerable to COVID-19, since they are at increased risk for disease progression and for obstetric complications, such as premature labor, miscarriage, preeclampsia, cesarean delivery, fetal growth restriction and perinatal death. Despite this evidence, pregnant women are often excluded from clinical trials, resulting in limited knowledge on COVID-19 management. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to provide better evidence on the efficacy and safety of available COVID-19 treatment in pregnant women.
METHODS
Four authors searched major electronic databases from inception until 1 st November-2022 for controlled trials/observational studies, investigating outcomes after the administration of anti-SARS-CoV-2 treatments in pregnant women affected by COVID-19. The analyses investigated the cumulative incidence of delivery and maternal outcomes in pregnant women, comparing those taking active medication vs standard care. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Statistical significance was assessed using the random effects model and inverse-variance method. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the updated 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The protocol has been registered in Prospero (number registration: CRD42023397445).
RESULTS
From initially 937 non duplicate records, we assessed the full texts of 40 articles, finally including ten studies. In six studies, including 1627 patients, the use of casirivimab/imdevimab (CAS/IMD), remdesivir, and IFN-alpha 2b significantly decreased the need of cesarean section ((RR = 0.665; 95%CI: 0.491-0.899; p = 0.008; I 2 = 19.5%;) (Table 1, (Fig. 1). Treatments did not decrease the risk of preterm delivery, admission to neonatal ICU, or stillbirth/perinatal loss (p-values > 0.50 for all these outcomes) and did not prevent the progression of disease towards severe degrees (k = 8; 2,374 pregnant women; RR = 0.778; 95%CI: 0.550-1.099; p = 0.15; I 2 = 0%). Moreover, the use of medications during pregnancy did not modify the incidence of maternal death in two studies (Table 2).
CONCLUSIONS
To our analysis, CAS/IMD, remdesivir, and IFN alpha 2b reduced the number of cesarean sections but demonstrated no effect on disease progression and other obstetric and COVID-19 related outcomes. The inability to evaluate the influence of viral load on illness development in pregnant women was attributed to lack of data. In our systematic review, no major side effects were reported. Though, it is essential for the medical community to focus more on clinical trials and less on episodic case reports and case series, with standardization of fetal and maternal outcomes.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Humans; Female; COVID-19; Cesarean Section; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Stillbirth; Disease Progression; Pregnancy Outcome
PubMed: 37946100
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-023-08747-2 -
Thrombosis Research Aug 2023Idarucizumab has been approved to reverse the anticoagulant effect of dabigatran. However, there is little knowledge of the effectiveness and safety of idarucizumab in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Idarucizumab has been approved to reverse the anticoagulant effect of dabigatran. However, there is little knowledge of the effectiveness and safety of idarucizumab in daily practice.
AIMS
This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the use, effectiveness and outcomes of idarucizumab.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed up to September 8th 2022. Original studies including patients prescribed idarucizumab, evaluating prescription indications, prescription appropriateness, haemostatic efficacy and/or the occurrence of adverse events were eligible. Case-reports and studies performed in patients ≤18 years or in healthy volunteers were excluded. Study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. Pooled estimates were calculated using the random-effects model, after Freeman-Tukey double-arcsine transformation.
RESULTS
Thirty studies comprising 3602 patients were included. Idarucizumab was prescribed for bleeding (63.1 %, 95%CI 57.0 %-69.0 %), invasive procedures (30.5 %, 95%CI: 24.1 %-37.2 %), to enable thrombolysis (range: 2.0 %-27.3 %), dabigatran intoxication without bleeding (range: 3.6 %-7.0 %) or unspecified reasons (range: 0.4 %-18.8 %). Overall, 2.8 % (95%CI 0.5 %-6.2 %) of prescription indications were reported to be inappropriate upon post-hoc evaluation. Hemostatic effectiveness was achieved in 77.7 % (95%CI 66.7 %-87.2 %) and peri-procedural haemostasis was normal in 98.5 % (95%CI 86.6 %-100 %) of patients. The pooled incidences of all-cause mortality and thromboembolic events at any follow-up duration were 13.6 % (95%CI 9.6 %-17.9 %) and 2.0 % (95%CI 0.8 %-3.4 %), respectively.
CONCLUSION
Idarucizumab was mainly prescribed in the setting of bleeding. The reported hemostatic effectiveness was good, especially perioperatively, and the incidence of thromboembolic events was low. Patients with dabigatran-associated bleeding or requiring an urgent procedure nonetheless face a high mortality risk.
Topics: Humans; Dabigatran; Antithrombins; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Hemorrhage; Thromboembolism; Hemostatics
PubMed: 37267671
DOI: 10.1016/j.thromres.2023.05.020 -
Blood Cancer Journal Sep 2023Rituximab-based chemo-immunotherapy is currently the standard first-line treatment for Waldenstrom macroglobulinaemia (WM), while ibrutinib has emerged as an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Rituximab-based chemo-immunotherapy is currently the standard first-line treatment for Waldenstrom macroglobulinaemia (WM), while ibrutinib has emerged as an alternative. In the absence of randomised trials (RCTs) comparing these regimens, the optimal first-line treatment for WM remains uncertain. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we sought to assess the efficacy and safety of first-line treatment regimens for WM. We searched key databases from January 2007 to March 2023, including phase II and III trials, including treatment-naïve WM patients treated with rituximab-based regimens or ibrutinib. Response rates, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicities were evaluated. Four phase III and seven phase II trials were included among 736 unique records. Pooled response rates from all comparative and non-comparative trials were 46%, 33% and 26% for bendamustine rituximab (BR), bortezomib-dexamethasone, cyclophosphamide, rituximab (BDRC) and ibrutinib rituximab (IR), respectively. Two-year pooled PFS was 89%, 81% and 82% with BR, BDRC and IR, respectively. Neuropathy was more frequent with bortezomib, while haematologic and cardiac toxicities were more common with chemo-immunotherapy and ibrutinib-based regimens respectively. Our findings suggest that BR yields higher response rates than bortezomib or ibrutinib-based combinations. RCTs comparing BR against emerging therapies, including novel Bruton Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors, are warranted.
Topics: Humans; Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia; Rituximab; Bortezomib; Clinical Protocols; Cyclophosphamide
PubMed: 37679351
DOI: 10.1038/s41408-023-00916-5 -
RMD Open Dec 2023Refractory autoimmune diseases remain a significant challenge in clinical practice and new therapeutic options are needed. This systematic review evaluates the existing...
OBJECTIVE
Refractory autoimmune diseases remain a significant challenge in clinical practice and new therapeutic options are needed. This systematic review evaluates the existing reported data on the CD38-targeting antibody daratumumab as a new therapeutic approach in autoantibody-mediated autoimmune diseases.
METHODS
A protocolised systematic literature review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was performed. Two databases (Medline and Embase) were searched for suitable studies. Usage of daratumumab in non-oncological or non-transplantation associated diseases with autoimmune pathophysiology was analysed including patient characteristics, therapeutic regimen, adverse events and patient outcome.
RESULTS
38 publications reporting the clinical course of 83 patients met the inclusion criteria. Daratumumab usage was reported in therapy-refractory cases (median of 5 different previous therapies) in 24 different autoimmune diseases. The median number of applications of daratumumab was 4, mainly via intravenous applications (87%). Concomitant treatment included glucocorticoids in 64% of patients, intravenous immunoglobulins (33%) and rituximab (17%). Remission or improvement of disease was reported in 81% of patients. Autoantibody depletion or reduction was stated in 52% of patients. Death occurred in three patients (3%). Adverse events were reported in 45% of patients including application-associated reaction (20%), infection (19%) and hypogammaglobulinaemia (33%).
CONCLUSION
Targeting CD38 via daratumumab is a new promising therapeutic option in therapy refractory autoimmune diseases. Efficacy as well as optimal therapeutic regimen and management or prevention of adverse events require further investigation. Therefore, systematic clinical trials of this therapeutic approach are needed.
Topics: Humans; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Rituximab; Autoimmune Diseases; Autoantibodies
PubMed: 38101819
DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2023-003604 -
Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice :... Oct 2023We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis aiming to assess the efficacy and safety of Nivolumab treatment in patients with newly diagnosed and recurrent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis aiming to assess the efficacy and safety of Nivolumab treatment in patients with newly diagnosed and recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (GBM).
DATA SOURCES
Our study followed the guidelines outlined in the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. The protocol for this review can be found in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews Database (CRD42022340071). We performed searches on the Medline, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases.
DATA SUMMARY
A total of 545 studies were identified through our comprehensive search across the five databases (PubMed: 78, Embase: 82, Medline: 173, Scopus: 138, Web of Science: 74). After conducting a thorough analysis, our meta-analysis indicated that treatment with Nivolumab led to improved overall survival (OS) outcomes in newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients, as evidenced by a prolonged median OS based on trial data. However, there was no significant beneficial effect observed in terms of median progression-free survival (PFS), as well as OS at 6, 12, and 24 months. Furthermore, our results demonstrated no efficacy of Nivolumab in the treatment of recurrent GBM patients.
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, Nivolumab demonstrated promising results that warrant further investigation for its use in newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients. However, its effectiveness was not observed in the context of recurrent GBM.
Topics: Humans; Glioblastoma; Nivolumab; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Progression-Free Survival; Brain Neoplasms
PubMed: 37503551
DOI: 10.1177/10781552231190104 -
The Lancet. Microbe Nov 2023Randomised controlled trials of passive antibodies as treatment and prophylaxis for COVID-19 have reported variable efficacy. However, the determinants of efficacy have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Randomised controlled trials of passive antibodies as treatment and prophylaxis for COVID-19 have reported variable efficacy. However, the determinants of efficacy have not been identified. We aimed to assess how the dose and timing of administration affect treatment outcome.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we extracted data from published studies of passive antibody treatment from Jan 1, 2019, to Jan 31, 2023, that were identified by searching multiple databases, including MEDLINE, PubMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We included only randomised controlled trials of passive antibody administration for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. To compare administered antibody dose between different treatments, we used data on in-vitro neutralisation titres to normalise dose by antibody potency. We used mixed-effects regression and model fitting to analyse the relationship between timing, dose and efficacy.
FINDINGS
We found 58 randomised controlled trials that investigated passive antibody therapies for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. Earlier clinical stage at treatment initiation was highly predictive of the efficacy of both monoclonal antibodies (p<0·0001) and convalescent plasma therapy (p=0·030) in preventing progression to subsequent stages, with either prophylaxis or treatment in outpatients showing the greatest effects. For the treatment of outpatients with COVID-19, we found a significant association between the dose administered and efficacy in preventing hospitalisation (relative risk 0·77; p<0·0001). Using this relationship, we predicted that no approved monoclonal antibody was expected to provide more than 30% efficacy against some omicron (B.1.1.529) subvariants, such as BQ.1.1.
INTERPRETATION
Early administration before hospitalisation and sufficient doses of passive antibody therapy are crucial to achieving high efficacy in preventing clinical progression. The relationship between dose and efficacy provides a framework for the rational assessment of future passive antibody prophylaxis and treatment strategies for COVID-19.
FUNDING
The Australian Government Department of Health, Medical Research Future Fund, National Health and Medical Research Council, the University of New South Wales, Monash University, Haematology Society of Australia and New Zealand, Leukaemia Foundation, and the Victorian Government.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Serotherapy; Australia; Treatment Outcome; Antibodies, Monoclonal
PubMed: 37924835
DOI: 10.1016/S2666-5247(23)00194-5 -
Medicine Dec 2023A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the efficacy and the overall safety of Faricimab compared with other anti-vascular endothelial growth... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative efficacy and safety of Faricimab and other anti-VEGF therapy for age-related macular degeneration and diabetic macular edema: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
INTRODUCTION
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the efficacy and the overall safety of Faricimab compared with other anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGF) therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and diabetic macular edema (DME).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature search of a comprehensive electronic database was performed to identify randomized clinical trials published from January 2013 to January 2023 for Faricimab in AMD and DME. Weighted mean differences and risk ratios were used to integrate the different studies.
RESULTS
A total of 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 1678 AMD patients and 3 RCTs with 20 DME patients were included in the meta-analysis.In patients with AMD, a significant difference was found in the number of injections between Faricimab and other anti-VEGF therapy (MD = -2.42, 95% CI [-3.93 to -0.90], P = .002).No significant difference was found for the change in best corrected visual acuity (BVCA), central subfoveal thickness (CST), and gaining 15 or more letters. Similarly, no significant difference was found for adverse events.In patients with DME, a significant difference was observed for CST (MD = -22.41, 95% CI [-29.95 to -14.86], P < .00001) and the number of injections(MD = -0.93, 95% CI [-1.33 to -0.54], P < .00001). No significant difference was found for BVCA and gaining 15 or more letters, and no significant difference was found for adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
Comprehensive evidence confirms that Faricimab achieves non-inferior or even better CST improvement than other anti-VEGF therapies with extended dosing intervals, but more long-term follow-up studies are needed to support our conclusions.
Topics: Antibodies, Bispecific; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Macular Degeneration; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Macular Edema; Diabetes Complications; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38115358
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000036370