-
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Jan 2024Since the publication of the EULAR recommendations for the management of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) in 2016, several...
BACKGROUND
Since the publication of the EULAR recommendations for the management of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) in 2016, several randomised clinical trials have been published that have the potential to change clinical care and support the need for an update.
METHODS
Using EULAR standardised operating procedures, the EULAR task force undertook a systematic literature review and sought opinion from 20 experts from 16 countries. We modified existing recommendations and created new recommendations.
RESULTS
Four overarching principles and 17 recommendations were formulated. We recommend biopsies and ANCA testing to assist in establishing a diagnosis of AAV. For remission induction in life-threatening or organ-threatening AAV, we recommend a combination of high-dose glucocorticoids (GCs) in combination with either rituximab or cyclophosphamide. We recommend tapering of the GC dose to a target of 5 mg prednisolone equivalent/day within 4-5 months. Avacopan may be considered as part of a strategy to reduce exposure to GC in granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) or microscopic polyangiitis (MPA). Plasma exchange may be considered in patients with rapidly progressive glomerulonephritis. For remission maintenance of GPA/MPA, we recommend rituximab. In patients with relapsing or refractory eosinophilic GPA, we recommend the use of mepolizumab. Azathioprine and methotrexate are alternatives to biologics for remission maintenance in AAV.
CONCLUSIONS
In the light of recent advancements, these recommendations provide updated guidance on AAV management. As substantial data gaps still exist, informed decision-making between physicians and patients remains of key relevance.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Neutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibody-Associated Vasculitis; Antibodies, Antineutrophil Cytoplasmic; Azathioprine; Cyclophosphamide; Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis; Microscopic Polyangiitis; Remission Induction; Rituximab; Practice Guidelines as Topic
PubMed: 36927642
DOI: 10.1136/ard-2022-223764 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2023Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. The relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the benefits and harms of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their benefits and harms.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update of the living systematic review, we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to October 2022: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults over 18 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, compared to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes were: proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90; proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase (8 to 24 weeks after randomisation).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We conducted duplicate study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and analyses. We synthesised data using pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare treatments and rank them according to effectiveness (PASI 90 score) and acceptability (inverse of SAEs). We assessed the certainty of NMA evidence for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons using CINeMA, as very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer treatment hierarchy, from 0% (worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (best for effectiveness or safety).
MAIN RESULTS
This update includes an additional 12 studies, taking the total number of included studies to 179, and randomised participants to 62,339, 67.1% men, mainly recruited from hospitals. Average age was 44.6 years, mean PASI score at baseline was 20.4 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most studies were placebo-controlled (56%). We assessed a total of 20 treatments. Most (152) trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). One-third of the studies (65/179) had high risk of bias, 24 unclear risk, and most (90) low risk. Most studies (138/179) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 24 studies did not report a funding source. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than placebo. Anti-IL17 treatment showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 compared to all the interventions. Biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than the non-biological systemic agents. For reaching PASI 90, the most effective drugs when compared to placebo were (SUCRA rank order, all high-certainty evidence): infliximab (risk ratio (RR) 49.16, 95% CI 20.49 to 117.95), bimekizumab (RR 27.86, 95% CI 23.56 to 32.94), ixekizumab (RR 27.35, 95% CI 23.15 to 32.29), risankizumab (RR 26.16, 95% CI 22.03 to 31.07). Clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar when compared against each other. Bimekizumab and ixekizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than secukinumab. Bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than brodalumab and guselkumab. Infliximab, anti-IL17 drugs (bimekizumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, and brodalumab), and anti-IL23 drugs except tildrakizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than ustekinumab, three anti-TNF alpha agents, and deucravacitinib. Ustekinumab was superior to certolizumab. Adalimumab, tildrakizumab, and ustekinumab were superior to etanercept. No significant difference was shown between apremilast and two non-biological drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. The risk of SAEs was significantly lower for participants on methotrexate compared with most of the interventions. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with very low- to moderate-certainty evidence for all the comparisons. The findings therefore have to be viewed with caution. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1), the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our review shows that, compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation), and is not sufficient for evaluating longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean 44.6 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20.4 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the safety evidence for most interventions was very low to moderate quality. More randomised trials directly comparing active agents are needed, and these should include systematic subgroup analyses (sex, age, ethnicity, comorbidities, psoriatic arthritis). To provide long-term information on the safety of treatments included in this review, an evaluation of non-randomised studies is needed. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.
Topics: Adult; Male; Humans; Female; Ustekinumab; Methotrexate; Infliximab; Network Meta-Analysis; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Psoriasis; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha; Biological Products
PubMed: 37436070
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub6 -
Clinical Rheumatology Sep 2023Systematic r eview to evaluate the quality of the clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management and to provide a synthesis of high-quality... (Review)
Review
Systematic r eview to evaluate the quality of the clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management and to provide a synthesis of high-quality CPG recommendations, highlighting areas of consistency, and inconsistency. Electronic searches of five databases and four online guideline repositories were performed. RA management CPGs were eligible for inclusion if they were written in English and published between January 2015 and February 2022; focused on adults ≥ 18 years of age; met the criteria of a CPG as defined by the Institute of Medicine; and were rated as high quality on the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. RA CPGs were excluded if they required additional payment to access; only addressed recommendations for the system/organization of care and did not include interventional management recommendations; and/or included other arthritic conditions. Of 27 CPGs identified, 13 CPGs met eligibility criteria and were included. Non-pharmacological care should include patient education, patient-centered care, shared decision-making, exercise, orthoses, and a multi-disciplinary approach to care. Pharmacological care should include conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), with methotrexate as the first-line choice. If monotherapy conventional synthetic DMARDs fail to achieve a treatment target, this should be followed by combination therapy conventional synthetic DMARDs (leflunomide, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine), biologic DMARDS and targeted synthetic DMARDS. Management should also include monitoring, pre-treatment investigations and vaccinations, and screening for tuberculosis and hepatitis. Surgical care should be recommended if non-surgical care fails. This synthesis offers clear guidance of evidence-based RA care to healthcare providers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol for this review was registered with Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/UB3Y7 ).
Topics: Adult; Humans; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Hydroxychloroquine; Methotrexate; Sulfasalazine; Practice Guidelines as Topic
PubMed: 37291382
DOI: 10.1007/s10067-023-06654-0 -
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases May 2024New modes of action and more data on the efficacy and safety of existing drugs in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) required an update of the EULAR 2019 recommendations for the...
OBJECTIVE
New modes of action and more data on the efficacy and safety of existing drugs in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) required an update of the EULAR 2019 recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of PsA.
METHODS
Following EULAR standardised operating procedures, the process included a systematic literature review and a consensus meeting of 36 international experts in April 2023. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendations were determined.
RESULTS
The updated recommendations comprise 7 overarching principles and 11 recommendations, and provide a treatment strategy for pharmacological therapies. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs should be used in monotherapy only for mild PsA and in the short term; oral glucocorticoids are not recommended. In patients with peripheral arthritis, rapid initiation of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs is recommended and methotrexate preferred. If the treatment target is not achieved with this strategy, a biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) should be initiated, without preference among modes of action. Relevant skin psoriasis should orient towards bDMARDs targeting interleukin (IL)-23p40, IL-23p19, IL-17A and IL-17A/F inhibitors. In case of predominant axial or entheseal disease, an algorithm is also proposed. Use of Janus kinase inhibitors is proposed primarily after bDMARD failure, taking relevant risk factors into account, or in case bDMARDs are not an appropriate choice. Inflammatory bowel disease and uveitis, if present, should influence drug choices, with monoclonal tumour necrosis factor inhibitors proposed. Drug switches and tapering in sustained remission are also addressed.
CONCLUSION
These updated recommendations integrate all currently available drugs in a practical and progressive approach, which will be helpful in the pharmacological management of PsA.
Topics: Arthritis, Psoriatic; Humans; Antirheumatic Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Methotrexate; Biological Products
PubMed: 38499325
DOI: 10.1136/ard-2024-225531 -
PloS One 2023Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is the leading cause of mortality worldwide. Atherosclerosis occurs due to accumulation of low-density lipoprotein... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is the leading cause of mortality worldwide. Atherosclerosis occurs due to accumulation of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) in the arterial system. Thus, lipid lowering therapy is essential for both primary and secondary prevention. Proprotein convertase subtilisn/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors (Evolocumab, Alirocumab) and small interfering RNA (siRNA) therapy (Inclisiran) have been demonstrated to lower LDL-c and ASCVD events in conjunction with maximally tolerated statin therapy. However, the degree of LDL-c reduction and the impact on reducing major adverse cardiac events, including their impact on mortality, remains unclear.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of PCSK9 inhibitors and small interfering RNA (siRNA) therapy on LDL-c reduction and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and mortality by conducting a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
METHODS
Using Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library and clinicaltrials.gov until April 2023, we extracted randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PCSK9 inhibitors (Evolocumab, Alirocumab) and siRNA therapy (Inclisiran) for lipid lowering and risk of MACE. Using random-effects models, we pooled the relative risks and 95% CIs and weighted least-squares mean difference in LDL-c levels. We estimated odds ratios with 95% CIs among MACE subtypes and all-cause mortality. Fixed-effect model was used, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic.
RESULTS
In all, 54 studies with 87,669 participants (142,262 person-years) met criteria for inclusion. LDL-c percent change was reported in 47 studies (n = 62,634) evaluating two PCSK9 inhibitors and siRNA therapy. Of those, 21 studies (n = 41,361) included treatment with Evolocumab (140mg), 22 (n = 11,751) included Alirocumab (75mg), and 4 studies (n = 9,522) included Inclisiran (284mg and 300mg). Compared with placebo, after a median of 24 weeks (IQR 12-52), Evolocumab reduced LDL-c by -61.09% (95% CI: -64.81, -57.38, p<0.01) and Alirocumab reduced LDL-c by -46.35% (95% CI: -51.75, -41.13, p<0.01). Inclisiran 284mg reduced LDL-c by -54.83% (95% CI: -59.04, -50.62, p = 0.05) and Inclisiran 300mg reduced LDL-c by -43.11% (95% CI: -52.42, -33.80, p = 0.01). After a median of 8 months (IQR 6-15), Evolocumab reduced the risk of myocardial infarction (MI), OR 0.72 (95% CI: 0.64, 0.81, p<0.01), coronary revascularization, 0.77 (95% CI: 0.70, 0.84, p<0.01), stroke, 0.79 (95% CI: 0.66, 0.94, p = 0.01) and overall MACE 0.85 (95% CI: 0.80, 0.89, p<0.01). Alirocumab reduced MI, 0.57 (0.38, 0.86, p = 0.01), cardiovascular mortality 0.35 (95% CI: 0.16, 0.77, p = 0.01), all-cause mortality 0.60 (95% CI: 0.43, 0.84, p<0.01), and overall MACE 0.35 (0.16, 0.77, p = 0.01).
CONCLUSION
PCSK9 inhibitors (Evolocumab, Alirocumab) and siRNA therapy (Inclisiran) significantly reduced LDL-c by >40% in high-risk individuals. Additionally, both Alirocumab and Evolocumab reduced the risk of MACE, and Alirocumab reduced cardiovascular and all-cause mortality.
Topics: Humans; PCSK9 Inhibitors; Cholesterol, LDL; Myocardial Infarction; Proprotein Convertase 9; Atherosclerosis; Heart Disease Risk Factors; RNA, Small Interfering; Anticholesteremic Agents; Cardiovascular Diseases; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors
PubMed: 38055686
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295359 -
Rheumatology (Oxford, England) Nov 2023To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of current treatment strategies for the vacuoles, E1 enzyme, X-linked, autoinflammatory, somatic (VEXAS) syndrome.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of current treatment strategies for the vacuoles, E1 enzyme, X-linked, autoinflammatory, somatic (VEXAS) syndrome.
METHODS
A protocolized systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was performed. Three databases were searched for reports on treatment strategies for VEXAS. Data from the included publications was extracted and a narrative synthesis was performed. Treatment response was recorded as complete (CR), partial (PR) or none (NR) depending on changes in clinical symptoms and laboratory parameters. Patient characteristics, safety data and previous treatments were analysed.
RESULTS
We identified 36 publications with a total of 116 patients; 113 (98.3%) were male. The identified reports included azacytidine (CR 9/36, 25%; PR 14/36, 38.9%), Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) (CR 11/33, 33%; PR 9/33, 27.3%), tocilizumab (CR 3/15, 20%; PR 6/15, 40%), allogeneic stem cell transplantation (CR 6/7, 85.7%; one patient died), anakinra (CR 4/5, 80%; NR 1/5, 20%), canakinumab (CR 1/2, 50%; PR 1/2, 50%) and glucocorticoid monotherapy (CR 1/6, 16.7%; PR 4/6, 66.7%). Individual reports were available for TNF inhibitors, rituximab and MTX. Data on adverse events were available for 67 patients (67/116, 57.8%) and included: pneumonia (12/67, 17.9%), other infections (9/67, 13.4%), venous thromboembolisms (6/67, 8.9%), cytopenias (4/67, 5.9%), and acute (4/67, 5.9%) and chronic graft-vs-host-disease (2/67, 2.9%).
CONCLUSION
Current data on VEXAS treatment are limited and inhomogeneous. Treatment decisions should be individualized. For the devolvement of treatment algorithms clinical trials are needed. Adverse events remain a challenge, especially an elevated risk for venous thromboembolism associated to JAKi treatment should be carefully considered.
Topics: Humans; Male; Female; Algorithms; Azacitidine; Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome; Databases, Factual; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Mutation
PubMed: 37233149
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead240 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Oct 2023Ribavirin use for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection in patients with haematologic malignancies (HM) and haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Ribavirin treatment for respiratory syncytial virus infection in patients with haematologic malignancy and haematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Ribavirin use for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection in patients with haematologic malignancies (HM) and haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients remains controversial.
OBJECTIVES
To summarize the current evidence of ribavirin treatment in association with mortality and progression to lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) among patients with HM/HSCT with RSV infection.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, and the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Science.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials and observational studies investigating the effects of ribavirin, compared with treatment without ribavirin, for RSV infection.
PARTICIPANTS
Patients with HM/HSCT.
INTERVENTIONS
Ribavirin versus no ribavirin.
ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS
The risk of bias in non-randomized studies of exposure (ROBIN-E).
METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS
The random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled OR (pOR) with 95% CI for the pooled effect estimates of ribavirin benefits. Grading of recommendation assessment, development, and evaluation was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence.
RESULTS
One randomized controlled trial and 14 observational studies were included, representing 1125 patients with HM/HSCT. Ribavirin use was not associated with lower all-cause or RSV-associated mortality with pORs [95% CI] of 0.81 [0.40, 1.66], I = 55% (low certainty of evidence) and 0.48 [0.11, 2.15], I = 64% (very low certainty of evidence), respectively. In subgroup analyses, ribavirin use was associated with lower mortality in patients with HM/HSCT with LRTI with pOR [95% CI] of 0.19 [0.07, 0.51], I = 0% (moderate certainty of evidence). In subgroup analyses among studies providing adjusted OR, ribavirin use was associated with lower all-cause mortality with pOR of 0.41 [0.23, 0.74], I = 0% (moderate certainty of evidence). In addition, aerosolized ribavirin was associated with lower progression to LRTI with pOR [95% CI] of 0.27 [0.09, 0.80], I = 71% (low certainty of evidence).
CONCLUSIONS
Ribavirin may be a reasonable option to treat RSV in patients with HM/HSCT in the absence of other effective antiviral agents.
Topics: Humans; Ribavirin; Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections; Antiviral Agents; Hematologic Neoplasms; Respiratory Tract Infections; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
PubMed: 37116860
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2023.04.021 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2023Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic disease of the central nervous system that affects mainly young adults (two to three times more frequently in women than in men) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic disease of the central nervous system that affects mainly young adults (two to three times more frequently in women than in men) and causes significant disability after onset. Although it is accepted that immunotherapies for people with MS decrease disease activity, uncertainty regarding their relative safety remains.
OBJECTIVES
To compare adverse effects of immunotherapies for people with MS or clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), and to rank these treatments according to their relative risks of adverse effects through network meta-analyses (NMAs).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, two other databases and trials registers up to March 2022, together with reference checking and citation searching to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included participants 18 years of age or older with a diagnosis of MS or CIS, according to any accepted diagnostic criteria, who were included in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined one or more of the agents used in MS or CIS, and compared them versus placebo or another active agent. We excluded RCTs in which a drug regimen was compared with a different regimen of the same drug without another active agent or placebo as a control arm.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods for data extraction and pairwise meta-analyses. For NMAs, we used the netmeta suite of commands in R to fit random-effects NMAs assuming a common between-study variance. We used the CINeMA platform to GRADE the certainty of the body of evidence in NMAs. We considered a relative risk (RR) of 1.5 as a non-inferiority safety threshold compared to placebo. We assessed the certainty of evidence for primary outcomes within the NMA according to GRADE, as very low, low, moderate or high.
MAIN RESULTS
This NMA included 123 trials with 57,682 participants Serious adverse events (SAEs) Reporting of SAEs was available from 84 studies including 5696 (11%) events in 51,833 (89.9%) participants out of 57,682 participants in all studies. Based on the absolute frequency of SAEs, our non-inferiority threshold (up to a 50% increased risk) meant that no more than 1 in 18 additional people would have a SAE compared to placebo. Low-certainty evidence suggested that three drugs may decrease SAEs compared to placebo (relative risk [RR], 95% confidence interval [CI]): interferon beta-1a (Avonex) (0.78, 0.66 to 0.94); dimethyl fumarate (0.79, 0.67 to 0.93), and glatiramer acetate (0.84, 0.72 to 0.98). Several drugs met our non-inferiority criterion versus placebo: moderate-certainty evidence for teriflunomide (1.08, 0.88 to 1.31); low-certainty evidence for ocrelizumab (0.85, 0.67 to 1.07), ozanimod (0.88, 0.59 to 1.33), interferon beta-1b (0.94, 0.78 to 1.12), interferon beta-1a (Rebif) (0.96, 0.80 to 1.15), natalizumab (0.97, 0.79 to 1.19), fingolimod (1.05, 0.92 to 1.20) and laquinimod (1.06, 0.83 to 1.34); very low-certainty evidence for daclizumab (0.83, 0.68 to 1.02). Non-inferiority with placebo was not met due to imprecision for the other drugs: low-certainty evidence for cladribine (1.10, 0.79 to 1.52), siponimod (1.20, 0.95 to 1.51), ofatumumab (1.26, 0.88 to 1.79) and rituximab (1.01, 0.67 to 1.52); very low-certainty evidence for immunoglobulins (1.05, 0.33 to 3.32), diroximel fumarate (1.05, 0.23 to 4.69), peg-interferon beta-1a (1.07, 0.66 to 1.74), alemtuzumab (1.16, 0.85 to 1.60), interferons (1.62, 0.21 to 12.72) and azathioprine (3.62, 0.76 to 17.19). Withdrawals due to adverse events Reporting of withdrawals due to AEs was available from 105 studies (85.4%) including 3537 (6.39%) events in 55,320 (95.9%) patients out of 57,682 patients in all studies. Based on the absolute frequency of withdrawals, our non-inferiority threshold (up to a 50% increased risk) meant that no more than 1 in 31 additional people would withdraw compared to placebo. No drug reduced withdrawals due to adverse events when compared with placebo. There was very low-certainty evidence (meaning that estimates are not reliable) that two drugs met our non-inferiority criterion versus placebo, assuming an upper 95% CI RR limit of 1.5: diroximel fumarate (0.38, 0.11 to 1.27) and alemtuzumab (0.63, 0.33 to 1.19). Non-inferiority with placebo was not met due to imprecision for the following drugs: low-certainty evidence for ofatumumab (1.50, 0.87 to 2.59); very low-certainty evidence for methotrexate (0.94, 0.02 to 46.70), corticosteroids (1.05, 0.16 to 7.14), ozanimod (1.06, 0.58 to 1.93), natalizumab (1.20, 0.77 to 1.85), ocrelizumab (1.32, 0.81 to 2.14), dimethyl fumarate (1.34, 0.96 to 1.86), siponimod (1.63, 0.96 to 2.79), rituximab (1.63, 0.53 to 5.00), cladribine (1.80, 0.89 to 3.62), mitoxantrone (2.11, 0.50 to 8.87), interferons (3.47, 0.95 to 12.72), and cyclophosphamide (3.86, 0.45 to 33.50). Eleven drugs may have increased withdrawals due to adverse events compared with placebo: low-certainty evidence for teriflunomide (1.37, 1.01 to 1.85), glatiramer acetate (1.76, 1.36 to 2.26), fingolimod (1.79, 1.40 to 2.28), interferon beta-1a (Rebif) (2.15, 1.58 to 2.93), daclizumab (2.19, 1.31 to 3.65) and interferon beta-1b (2.59, 1.87 to 3.77); very low-certainty evidence for laquinimod (1.42, 1.01 to 2.00), interferon beta-1a (Avonex) (1.54, 1.13 to 2.10), immunoglobulins (1.87, 1.01 to 3.45), peg-interferon beta-1a (3.46, 1.44 to 8.33) and azathioprine (6.95, 2.57 to 18.78); however, very low-certainty evidence is unreliable. Sensitivity analyses including only studies with low attrition bias, drug dose above the group median, or only patients with relapsing remitting MS or CIS, and subgroup analyses by prior disease-modifying treatments did not change these figures. Rankings No drug yielded consistent P scores in the upper quartile of the probability of being better than others for primary and secondary outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found mostly low and very low-certainty evidence that drugs used to treat MS may not increase SAEs, but may increase withdrawals compared with placebo. The results suggest that there is no important difference in the occurrence of SAEs between first- and second-line drugs and between oral, injectable, or infused drugs, compared with placebo. Our review, along with other work in the literature, confirms poor-quality reporting of adverse events from RCTs of interventions. At the least, future studies should follow the CONSORT recommendations about reporting harm-related issues. To address adverse effects, future systematic reviews should also include non-randomized studies.
Topics: Male; Female; Young Adult; Humans; Adolescent; Adult; Interferon beta-1a; Immunosuppressive Agents; Glatiramer Acetate; Network Meta-Analysis; Cladribine; Natalizumab; Interferon beta-1b; Alemtuzumab; Dimethyl Fumarate; Daclizumab; Azathioprine; Rituximab; Fingolimod Hydrochloride; Multiple Sclerosis; Immunotherapy
PubMed: 38032059
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012186.pub2 -
JAMA Network Open Jan 2024The NAPOLI 3 trial showed the superiority of fluorouracil, leucovorin, liposomal irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (NALIRIFOX) over the combination of gemcitabine and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The NAPOLI 3 trial showed the superiority of fluorouracil, leucovorin, liposomal irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (NALIRIFOX) over the combination of gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GEM-NABP) as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Analyses comparing NALIRIFOX and GEM-NABP with fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) have not yet been reported.
OBJECTIVE
To derive survival, response, and toxic effects data from phase 3 clinical trials and compare NALIRIFOX, FOLFIRINOX, and GEM-NABP.
DATA SOURCES
After a systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology meetings' libraries, Kaplan-Meier curves were extracted from phase 3 clinical trials conducted from January 1, 2011, until September 12, 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
Phase 3 clinical trials that tested NALIRIFOX, FOLFIRINOX, or GEM-NABP as first-line treatment of metastatic PDAC and reported overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) curves were selected. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Individual Participant Data reporting guidelines.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Individual patient OS and PFS data were extracted from Kaplan-Meier plots of original trials via a graphic reconstructive algorithm. Overall response rates (ORRs) and grade 3 or higher toxic effects rates were also collected. A pooled analysis was conducted, and results were validated via a network meta-analysis.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary end point was OS. Secondary outcomes included PFS, ORR, and toxic effects rates.
RESULTS
A total of 7 trials with data on 2581 patients were analyzed, including 383 patients treated with NALIRIFOX, 433 patients treated with FOLFIRINOX, and 1756 patients treated with GEM-NABP. Median PFS was longer in patients treated with NALIRIFOX (7.4 [95% CI, 6.1-7.7] months) or FOLFIRINOX (7.3 [95% CI, 6.5-7.9] months; [HR], 1.21 [95% CI, 0.86-1.70]; P = .28) compared with patients treated with GEM-NABP (5.7 [95% CI, 5.6-6.1] months; HR vs NALIRIFOX, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.22-1.73]; P < .001). Similarly, GEM-NABP was associated with poorer OS (10.4 [95% CI, 9.8-10.8]; months) compared with NALIRIFOX (HR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.00-1.39]; P = .05], while no difference was observed between FOLFIRINOX (11.7 [95% CI, 10.4-13.0] months) and NALIRIFOX (11.1 [95% CI, 10.1-12.3] months; HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.81-1.39]; P = .65). There were no statistically significant differences in ORR among NALIRIFOX (41.8%), FOLFIRINOX (31.6%), and GEM-NABP (35.0%). NALIRIFOX was associated with lower incidence of grade 3 or higher hematological toxic effects (eg, platelet count decreased 1.6% vs 11.8% with FOLFIRINOX and 10.8% with GEM-NABP), but higher rates of severe diarrhea compared with GEM-NABP (20.3% vs 15.7%).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, NALIRIFOX and FOLFIRINOX were associated with similar PFS and OS as first-line treatment of advanced PDAC, although NALIRIFOX was associated with a different toxicity profile. Careful patient selection, financial toxic effects consideration, and direct comparison between FOLFIRINOX and NALIRIFOX are warranted.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Irinotecan; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Leucovorin; Oxaliplatin; Gemcitabine; Fluorouracil; Adenocarcinoma
PubMed: 38190183
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.50756 -
Hematology (Amsterdam, Netherlands) Dec 2023The meta-analysis sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a combination of venetoclax (Ven) and azacitidine (AZA) in the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The efficacy and safety of venetoclax and azacytidine combination treatment in patients with acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
The meta-analysis sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a combination of venetoclax (Ven) and azacitidine (AZA) in the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS).
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for eligible studies from inception to June 2022. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 (RoB 2.0) and Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) to evaluate the quality of the included literature. The inverse variance method was used to calculate the pooled proportion and 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
The meta-analysis included nineteen studies with a total of 1615 patients. The pooled overall CR/CRi (complete response (CR)/complete response with incomplete blood count recovery (CRi)) rate for AML and MDS was 57.9% (95% CI 49.5-65.9%, I = 83%). Subgroup analyses showed that the rate of pooled CR/CRi was 67.5% (95% CI 61.1-73.3%, I = 54%) for the new-diagnosed (ND) AML group, 30% (95% CI 20-44.1%, I = 66%) for relapsed/refractory (R/R) AML, and 67.6% (95% CI 52.6-79.8%, I = 65%) for MDS, respectively. One randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed that CR/CRi was 64.7% in ND-AML patients. A total of 9 studies reported adverse events, with neutropenia being the most common of grade 3-4 adverse events, with a rate of 53.7% (95% CI 61.1-73.3%, I = 54%).
CONCLUSION
The present meta-analysis demonstrated that the Ven + AZA regimen is efficacious for the treatment of AML and MDS, with it being more effective for ND-AML than R/R AML. The most common adverse effects of this regimen are grade 3-4 neutropenia and neutropenia with fever.
Topics: Humans; Azacitidine; Myelodysplastic Syndromes; Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Neutropenia
PubMed: 37036307
DOI: 10.1080/16078454.2023.2198098