-
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) presents significant treatment selection challenges due to limited therapeutic options. This study aimed to...
Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) presents significant treatment selection challenges due to limited therapeutic options. This study aimed to comprehensively assess the efficacy of multiple treatment regimens for mCRPC through a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A systematically comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed in Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The network meta-analysis was employed to compare the overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) among different interventions at specific time points. This study was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023422823). A total of 29 RCTs, involving 12,706 patients and investigating 16 interventions, were included in the analysis. Chempretarget ((capivasertib or cabozantinib) + docetaxel + prednisone)) and PARP (Olaparib or rucaparib) inhibitors emerged as interventions that significantly improved survival outcomes compared to first-line treatment in mCRPC patients. Chempretarget demonstrated superior overall survival starting from the 12th month, while PARP inhibitors showed a clear advantage in progression-free survival within the 3-18 months range. Notably, chempre ((Docetaxel or Cabazitaxel) + prednisone) exhibited favorable performance in radiographic progression-free survival during the 3-18 month period. Our findings underscore the efficacy of chempretarget, PARP inhibitors, and chempre in enhancing survival outcomes for mCRPC patients. Further head-to-head comparisons are warranted to validate these results. These findings carry important implications for treatment decision-making in mCRPC and may guide the development of more effective therapeutic strategies.
PubMed: 38074136
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1290990 -
Journal of Personalized Medicine Nov 2023The nasal microbiome represents the main environmental factor of the inflammatory process in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). Antibiotics and steroids constitute the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The nasal microbiome represents the main environmental factor of the inflammatory process in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). Antibiotics and steroids constitute the mainstay of CRS therapies. However, their impact on microbial communities needs to be better understood. This systematic review summarizes the evidence about antibiotics' and steroids' impact on the nasal microbiota in patients with CRS.
METHODS
The search strategy was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. The authors searched all papers in the three major medical databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library) using the PICO tool (population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes). The search was carried out using a combination of the key terms "Microbiota" or "Microbiome" and "Chronic Rhinosinusitis".
RESULTS
Overall, 402 papers were identified, and after duplicate removal (127 papers), excluding papers off-topic (154) and for other structural reasons (110), papers were assessed for eligibility; finally, only 11 papers were included and summarized in the present systematic review. Some authors used only steroids, other researchers used only antibiotics, and others used both antibiotics and steroids. With regard to the use of steroids as exclusive medical treatment, topical mometasone and budesonide were investigated. With regard to the use of antibiotics as exclusive medical treatments, clarithromycin, doxycycline, roxithromycin, and amoxicillin clavulanate were investigated. Regarding the use of both antibiotics and steroids, two associations were investigated: systemic prednisone combined with amoxicillin clavulanate and topical budesonide combined with azithromycin.
CONCLUSIONS
The impact that therapies can have on the nasal microbiome of CRS patients is very varied. Further studies are needed to understand the role of the nasal microbiome, prevent CRS, and improve therapeutic tools for personalized medicine tailored to the individual patient.
PubMed: 38003898
DOI: 10.3390/jpm13111583 -
Scientific Reports Jan 2024We aimed to summarize the cancer risk among patients with indication of group I pharmaceuticals as stated in monographs presented by the International Agency for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
We aimed to summarize the cancer risk among patients with indication of group I pharmaceuticals as stated in monographs presented by the International Agency for Research on Cancer working groups. Following the PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted using the PubMed database. Pharmaceuticals with few studies on cancer risk were identified in systematic reviews; those with two or more studies were subjected to meta-analysis. For the meta-analysis, a random-effects model was used to calculate the summary relative risks (SRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Heterogeneity across studies was presented using the Higgins I square value from Cochran's Q test. Among the 12 group I pharmaceuticals selected, three involved a single study [etoposide, thiotepa, and mustargen + oncovin + procarbazine + prednisone (MOPP)], seven had two or more studies [busulfan, cyclosporine, azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, methoxsalen + ultraviolet (UV) radiation therapy, melphalan, and chlorambucil], and two did not have any studies [etoposide + bleomycin + cisplatin and treosulfan]. Cyclosporine and azathioprine reported increased skin cancer risk (SRR = 1.32, 95% CI 1.07-1.62; SRR = 1.56, 95% CI 1.25-1.93) compared to non-use. Cyclophosphamide increased bladder and hematologic cancer risk (SRR = 2.87, 95% CI 1.32-6.23; SRR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.65-3.58). Busulfan increased hematologic cancer risk (SRR = 6.71, 95% CI 2.49-18.08); melphalan was associated with hematologic cancer (SRR = 4.43, 95% CI 1.30-15.15). In the systematic review, methoxsalen + UV and MOPP were associated with an increased risk of skin and lung cancer, respectively. Our results can enhance persistent surveillance of group I pharmaceutical use, establish novel clinical strategies for patients with indications, and provide evidence for re-categorizing current group I pharmaceuticals into other groups.
Topics: Humans; Etoposide; Methoxsalen; Azathioprine; Melphalan; Busulfan; Neoplasms; Hematologic Neoplasms; Cyclophosphamide; Cyclosporins; Pharmaceutical Preparations
PubMed: 38172159
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-50602-6 -
Journal of Clinical Rheumatology :... Sep 2023The aim of this meta-analysis was to estimate the mean duration of glucocorticoid (GC) treatment in patients with giant cell arteritis. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The aim of this meta-analysis was to estimate the mean duration of glucocorticoid (GC) treatment in patients with giant cell arteritis. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception until November 30, 2021. The outcome measures were the proportion of patients on GCs at years 1, 2, and 5 after diagnosis and the mean GC dose (in the entire cohort and expressed in prednisone equivalents) at these time points. Twenty-two studies involving a total of 1786 patients were included. The pooled proportions of patients taking GCs at years 1, 2, and 5 were 89.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 83.2%-93.9%), 75.2% (95% CI, 58.7%-86.6%), and 44.3% (95% CI, 15.2%-77.6%), respectively. The pooled GC dose at years 1 and 2 was 9.1 mg/d (95% CI, 2.8-15.5 mg/d) and 7.8 mg/d (95% CI, 1.4-14.1 mg/d), respectively. The proportion of patients taking GCs at year 1 was lower in multicenter studies ( p = 0.003), in randomized controlled trials ( p = 0.01), and in studies using a GC-tapering schedule ( p = 0.01). There were no significant differences in the proportion of patients taking GCs at years 1 and 2 according to study design (retrospective vs. prospective), initial GC dose, use of pulse GCs, publication year, enrolment period, duration of follow-up, age, and sex. This meta-analysis showed that giant cell arteritis is a chronic disease that requires substantial and prolonged GC treatment in a considerable proportion of patients. A predefined GC-tapering schedule may help to avoid inadequately long GC treatment.
Topics: Humans; Duration of Therapy; Glucocorticoids; Giant Cell Arteritis; Chronic Disease; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36126266
DOI: 10.1097/RHU.0000000000001897 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2024Subacute thyroiditis (SAT) is a self-limiting and inflammatory thyroid disease. Although SAT usually improves on its own within weeks, it needs treatment when patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study
IMPORTANCE
Subacute thyroiditis (SAT) is a self-limiting and inflammatory thyroid disease. Although SAT usually improves on its own within weeks, it needs treatment when patients have pain, fever, and symptoms of thyrotoxicosis. Therapeutic drugs mainly include non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and glucocorticoids. Currently, there is no systematic review or meta-analysis of the comparison of outcomes between NSAIDs and glucocorticoids for the treatment of SAT.
OBJECTIVES
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the outcomes in subacute thyroiditis patients treated with glucocorticoids or NSAIDs.
DATA SOURCES
Using the four electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Wanfang database and Web of Science. All publications until 21 June 2023 were searched. The reference lists of all selected articles were independently screened to identify additional studies left out in the initial search.
STUDY SELECTION
The literature comparing outcomes between glucocorticoids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for patients with subacute thyroiditis will be included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two independent investigators (Anqi Yuan and Jialu Wu) extracted the data following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines (PRISMA) and then evaluated the quality of the eligible studies with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Fixed-effects models for the meta-analyses were applied. Heterogeneity was assessed with the chi-squared (x²) test (Cochran's Q) and inconsistency index (I²). The robustness of the results was tested with the sensitivity analyses. The bias of publication was assessed with the Harbord test.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The incidence of permanent hypothyroidism in SAT patients treated with corticosteroids or NSAIDs.
RESULTS
Our study included a total of ten comparative cohort studies with 1337 participants. We found that the incidence of developing permanent hypothyroidism in the SAT patients who received glucocorticoids treatment was significantly lower than those who received NSAIDs treatment. (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36-0.88; P = 0.01). The risk of permanent hypothyroidism in patients who received prednisone at an average initial dose < 40 mg/d was significantly lower than that in patients who received NSAIDs (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.14-0.94; P = 0.04). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of permanent hypothyroidism between SAT patients who received an average initial dose ≥ 40 mg/d of prednisone and those who received only NSAIDs (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.14-3.53; P = 0.67). In addition, the recurrence rate was observably higher in those receiving glucocorticoids than in those receiving NSAIDs (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.12-3.5; p = 0.02). The recurrence rate was significantly higher in patients with an average initial prednisone dose of < 40 mg/d than in the NSAIDs group. There was no significant difference in the recurrence rate between patients in the mean initial prednisone dose ≥ 40 mg/d group and those in the NSAIDs group.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this meta-analysis, we compared the treatment outcomes of SAT patients between glucocorticoids and NSAIDs. Our results indicated that glucocorticoid treatment was associated with a lower incidence of permanent hypothyroidism than NSAID treatment. Patients treated with NSAIDs might have a lower recurrence rate. This finding might help to understand the outcome of the disease when choosing different drugs and help physicians to make appropriate decisions.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023427332.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Thyroiditis, Subacute; Glucocorticoids; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38715797
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2024.1384365 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2024Multiple myeloma (MM) is a haematological malignancy that is characterised by proliferation of malignant plasma cells in the bone marrow. For adults ineligible to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Multiple myeloma (MM) is a haematological malignancy that is characterised by proliferation of malignant plasma cells in the bone marrow. For adults ineligible to receive high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant, the recommended treatment combinations in first-line therapy generally consist of combinations of alkylating agents, immunomodulatory drugs, and proteasome inhibitors. Daratumumab is a CD38-targeting, human IgG1k monoclonal antibody recently developed and approved for the treatment of people diagnosed with MM. Multiple myeloma cells uniformly over-express CD-38, a 46-kDa type II transmembrane glycoprotein, making myeloma cells a specific target for daratumumab.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the benefits and harms of daratumumab in addition to antineoplastic therapy compared to antineoplastic therapy only for adults with newly diagnosed MM who are ineligible for transplant.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, EU Clinical Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and conference proceedings from 2010 to September 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials that compared treatment with daratumumab added to antineoplastic therapy versus the same antineoplastic therapy alone in adult participants with a confirmed diagnosis of MM. We excluded quasi-randomised trials and trials with less than 80% adult participants, unless there were subgroup analyses of adults with MM.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the results of the search strategies for eligibility. We documented the process of study selection in a flowchart as recommended by the PRISMA statement. We evaluated the risk of bias in included studies with RoB 1 and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We followed standard Cochrane methodological procedures.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four open-label, two-armed randomised controlled trials (34 publications) involving a total of 1783 participants. The ALCYONE, MAIA, and OCTANS trials were multicentre trials conducted worldwide in middle- and high-income countries. The AMaRC 03-16 trial was conducted in one high-income country, Australia. The mean age of participants was 69 to 74 years, and the proportion of female participants was between 40% and 54%. All trials evaluated antineoplastic therapies with or without daratumumab. In the ALCYONE and OCTANS trials, daratumumab was combined with bortezomib and melphalan-prednisone. In the AMaRC 03-16 study, it was combined with bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone, and in the MAIA study, it was combined with lenalidomide and dexamethasone. None of the included studies was blinded (high risk of performance and detection bias). One study was published as abstract only, therefore the risk of bias for most criteria was unclear. The other three studies were published as full texts. Apart from blinding, the risk of bias was low for these studies. Overall survival Treatment with daratumumab probably increases overall survival when compared to the same treatment without daratumumab (hazard ratio (HR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.76, 2 studies, 1443 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). After a follow-up period of 36 months, 695 per 1000 participants survived in the control group, whereas 792 per 1000 participants survived in the daratumumab group (95% CI 758 to 825). Progression-free survival Treatment with daratumumab probably increases progression-free survival when compared to treatment without daratumumab (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.58, 3 studies, 1663 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). After a follow-up period of 24 months, progression-free survival was reached in 494 per 1000 participants in the control group versus 713 per 1000 participants in the daratumumab group (95% CI 664 to 760). Quality of life Treatment with daratumumab may result in a very small increase in quality of life after 12 months, evaluated on the EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status scale (GHS), when compared to treatment without daratumumab (mean difference 2.19, 95% CI -0.13 to 4.51, 3 studies, 1096 participants, low-certainty evidence). The scale is from 0 to 100, with a higher value indicating a better quality of life. On-study mortality Treatment with daratumumab probably decreases on-study mortality when compared to treatment without daratumumab (risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.83, 3 studies, 1644 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). After the longest follow-up available (12 to 72 months), 366 per 1000 participants in the control group and 264 per 1000 participants in the daratumumab group died (95% CI 227 to 304). Serious adverse events Treatment with daratumumab probably increases serious adverse events when compared to treatment without daratumumab (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.37, 3 studies, 1644 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). After the longest follow-up available (12 to 72 months), 505 per 1000 participants in the control group versus 596 per 1000 participants in the daratumumab group experienced serious adverse events (95% CI 515 to 692). Adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grade ≥ 3) Treatment with daratumumab probably results in little to no difference in adverse events (CTCAE grade ≥ 3) when compared to treatment without daratumumab (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.02, 3 studies, 1644 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). After the longest follow-up available (12 to 72 months), 953 per 1000 participants in the control group versus 963 per 1000 participants in the daratumumab group experienced adverse events (CTCAE grade ≥ 3) (95% CI 943 to 972). Treatment with daratumumab probably increases the risk of infections (CTCAE grade ≥ 3) when compared to treatment without daratumumab (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.78, 3 studies, 1644 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). After the longest follow-up available (12 to 72 months), 224 per 1000 participants in the control group versus 340 per 1000 participants in the daratumumab group experienced infections (CTCAE grade ≥ 3) (95% CI 291 to 399).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall analysis of four studies showed a potential benefit for daratumumab in terms of overall survival and progression-free survival and a slight potential benefit in quality of life. Participants treated with daratumumab probably experience increased serious adverse events. There were likely no differences between groups in adverse events (CTCAE grade ≥ 3); however, there are probably more infections (CTCAE grade ≥ 3) in participants treated with daratumumab. We identified six ongoing studies which might strengthen the certainty of evidence in a future update of this review.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bias; Bortezomib; Multiple Myeloma; Progression-Free Survival; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38695605
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013595.pub2 -
Seminars in Ophthalmology Jan 2024Optic neuritis may occur in a variety of conditions, including as a manifestation of multiple sclerosis. Despite significant research into the efficacy of... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Optic neuritis may occur in a variety of conditions, including as a manifestation of multiple sclerosis. Despite significant research into the efficacy of corticosteroids as a first-line treatment, the optimal route of administration has not been well defined. This review aims to explore the efficacy, adverse effects and economic implications of using oral versus intravenous methylprednisolone to treat acute optic neuritis.
METHODS
A systematic search of the databases PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL was performed to July 2022, prior to data collection and risk of bias analysis in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS
Six articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The results showed that in the treatment of acute optic neuritis, oral methylprednisolone has a non-inferior efficacy and adverse effect profile in comparison to intravenous methylprednisolone. In a cost analysis, oral methylprednisolone to be more cost-effective than intravenous methylprednisolone.
CONCLUSIONS
Oral methylprednisolone has comparable efficacy and adverse effect profiles to intravenous methylprednisolone for the treatment of optic neuritis. The analysis suggests oral administration is more cost-effective than intravenous administration; however, further analyses of the formal cost-benefit ratio are required.
Topics: Humans; Methylprednisolone; Prednisone; Glucocorticoids; Administration, Intravenous; Optic Neuritis; Administration, Oral
PubMed: 38013424
DOI: 10.1080/08820538.2023.2287100 -
BMC Cancer Jun 2024Poly (ADP- ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) has been increasingly adopted for metastatic castration-resistance prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients with homologous... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Poly (ADP- ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) has been increasingly adopted for metastatic castration-resistance prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients with homologous recombination repair deficiency (HRD). However, it is unclear which PARPi is optimal in mCRPC patients with HRD in 2nd -line setting.
METHOD
We conducted a systematic review of trials regarding PARPi- based therapies on mCRPC in 2nd -line setting and performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). Radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) was assessed as primary outcome. PSA response and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated as secondary outcomes. Subgroup analyses were performed according to specific genetic mutation.
RESULTS
Four RCTs comprised of 1024 patients (763 harbored homologous recombination repair (HRR) mutations) were identified for quantitative analysis. Regarding rPFS, olaparib monotherapy, rucaparib and cediranib plus olaparib showed significant improvement compared with ARAT. Olaparib plus cediranib had the highest surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) scores (87.5%) for rPFS, followed by rucaparib, olaparib and olaparib plus abiraterone acetate prednisone. For patients with BRCA 1/2 mutations, olaparib associated with the highest probability (98.1%) of improved rPFS. For patients with BRCA-2 mutations, olaparib and olaparib plus cediranib had similar efficacy. However, neither olaparib nor rucaparib showed significant superior effectiveness to androgen receptor-axis-targeted therapy (ARAT) in patients with ATM mutations. For safety, olaparib showed significantly lower ≥ 3 AE rate compared with cediranib plus olaparib (RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.51, 0.97), while olaparib plus cediranib was associated with the highest risk of all-grade AE.
CONCLUSION
PARPi-based therapy showed considerable efficacy for mCRPC patients with HRD in 2nd -line setting. However, patients should be treated accordingly based on their genetic background as well as the efficacy and safety of the selected regimen.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
CRD42023454079.
Topics: Humans; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors; Bayes Theorem; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant; Mutation; Male; Phthalazines; Network Meta-Analysis; Piperazines; BRCA2 Protein; Recombinational DNA Repair; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Progression-Free Survival; Indoles; BRCA1 Protein; Treatment Outcome; Quinazolines
PubMed: 38851712
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-024-12388-2 -
Le Infezioni in Medicina 2023Listeriosis is a known cause of community acquired bacterial meningitis/meningoencephalitis. It occurs more frequently in neonates, older people and immunocompromised...
BACKGROUND
Listeriosis is a known cause of community acquired bacterial meningitis/meningoencephalitis. It occurs more frequently in neonates, older people and immunocompromised hosts. Rarely, brain abscesses can complicate the course of infection, which poses a difficulty in the management and elevates morbidity and mortality. Myasthenia gravis is an autoimmune disease that often requires immunosuppressive treatment, which increases the risk for invasive infections.
CASE DESCRIPTION
A 75-year-old myasthenic patient, treated with prednisone and pyridostigmine, was diagnosed with invasive listeriosis. He presented with muscle weakness, dyspnea, hemiparesis and altered mental status. Brain imaging revealed multiple abscesses and blood cultures were positive for . Despite combination antibiotic therapy, he died 6 weeks after admission.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Ninety-six cases of brain abscesses from 1968 to 2023 were reviewed; the majority of the patients were men, 54 years-old on average, and had at least one risk factor for invasive listeriosis. The mortality exceeded 22%. Blood cultures and CSF/abscess cultures were positive in only 79.2% and 54.6%, respectively. The most common therapeutic approach was a combination regimen that included amoxicillin or ampicillin. Only 8 patients underwent surgery, of which one died.
CONCLUSION
This case highlights the importance of as a cause of brain abscesses in populations at risk, including myasthenic patients. The challenge of diagnosing and treating this condition is aggravated by the paucity of literature and the high mortality rate.
PubMed: 38075415
DOI: 10.53854/liim-3104-16 -
Clinical & Translational Oncology :... May 2024No head-to-head trials had been performed to estimate the relative effectiveness of poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) and androgen receptor signaling...
OBJECTIVES
No head-to-head trials had been performed to estimate the relative effectiveness of poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) and androgen receptor signaling inhibitor (ARSi) in the first-line treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We aimed to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of various systemic treatment agents for patients with mCRPC.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was conducted for abstracts and full-text articles from the database's inception through April 27, 2023. The study concentrated on assessing radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) for both overall and homologous recombination repair mutation (HRRm) population, with overall survival (OS) as the secondary measure. Under the Bayesian framework, the overall effect was pooled using the fixed-effects model in base case analysis. Scenario analysis using restricted mean survival time (RMST) methods was performed to test the robustness of the results.
RESULTS
Nine studies with 6,830 patients and 8 unique treatment options were included. Network meta-analysis demonstrated that talazoparib in combination with enzalutamide (TALA + ENZA; overall population, hazard ratio [HR], 0.20; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.16-0.26; RMST, 3.51; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.46-4.60; HRRm population, HR, 0.15; 95% CrI: 0.09-0.23; RMST, 4.14; 95% CI 2.84-5.39) was superior to other treatments in the first-line setting in terms of rPFS. The results of Bayesian framework and RMST models showed consistent efficacy ranks. When extrapolated to overall survival benefit, within the Bayesian framework, olaparib plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone (OLAP + AAP) achieved the highest OS benefit for the overall population, which was not statistically significant when compared to TALA + ENZA. However, TALA + ENZA achieved the highest OS benefit at 3 years by applying RMST.
CONCLUSIONS
We suggest that talazoparib in combination with enzalutamide is probably a preferred treatment agent for the overall population and HRRm patients with mCRPC. Given the limitations of network framework and the modeling assumptions undertaken to finalize the analyses, results should be cautiously interpreted.
PubMed: 38750344
DOI: 10.1007/s12094-024-03506-4