-
BMJ Open Mar 2024To compare the efficacy and safety of different anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents combined with different delivery methods for neovascular glaucoma... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative efficacy and safety of different anti-VEGF agents combined with different delivery methods for neovascular glaucoma: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy and safety of different anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents combined with different delivery methods for neovascular glaucoma (NVG).
DESIGN
Systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA).
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN and Chinese databases including the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Science Periodical Database (Wanfang Database), VIP Journal Integration Platform and China Biology Medicine Database were searched from inception to 5 September 2022.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the treatment of NVG using different anti-VEGF agents combined with various methods of drug administration, without any language limitations. All patients included underwent panretinal laser photocoagulation and there were no restrictions on prior glaucoma surgery.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Random-effect Bayesian NMA was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety and rank priority of anti-VEGF regimens. The source of heterogeneity and the related factors affecting the stability of the results were also explored. CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis) was used to assess the certainty of evidence.
RESULTS
Our analysis included 17 RCTs involving a total of 1311 eyes from 1228 patients. We examined five different treatment regimens, which used three different anti-VEGF drugs. The following treatments showed a significant decrease in intraocular pressure (IOP) compared with the control group at 1 month after glaucoma surgery: simultaneous intravitreal and intracameral injection of conbercept (ICCIVC) (mean difference (MD)=-11.56, 95% credible interval (CrI) -20.8 to -2.24), intravitreal injection of conbercept (MD=-8.88, 95% CrI -13.93 to -3.78), intravitreal injection of ranibizumab (MD=-7.62, 95% CrI -10.91 to -4.33) and intravitreal injection of bevacizumab IVB) (MD=-5.51, 95% CrI -10.79 to -0.35). The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) analysis indicated that ICCIVC (82.0%) may be the most effective regimen in reducing IOP. In terms of safety, there were no statistically significant differences among the interventions. According to the SUCRA analysis, ICCIVC (68.0%) was considered the safest choice with the fewest complications. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses showed that mean age was the main source of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated the robustness of the study results.
CONCLUSION
ICCIVC was more effective and safer than other anti-VEGF regimens for NVG. Simultaneous intravitreal and intracameral injection was found to be the best route of administration, and conbercept was found to be the superior drug selection when compared with ranibizumab and bevacizumab.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42022309676.
Topics: Humans; Glaucoma, Neovascular; Bevacizumab; Network Meta-Analysis; Ranibizumab; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factors; Glaucoma
PubMed: 38443085
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-080103 -
Advances in Therapy Jun 2024Gastric cancer has the highest incidence and mortality in Eastern Asia. The efficacy and safety of ramucirumab (RAM) monotherapy or in combination with paclitaxel (PTX)... (Review)
Review
Real-World Effectiveness and Safety of Ramucirumab as a Second-Line Treatment for Patients with Unresectable Advanced or Metastatic Gastric/Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma in Japan and South Korea: A Systematic Literature Review.
INTRODUCTION
Gastric cancer has the highest incidence and mortality in Eastern Asia. The efficacy and safety of ramucirumab (RAM) monotherapy or in combination with paclitaxel (PTX) for patients with unresectable advanced or metastatic gastric/gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (G/GEA) have been established in clinical trials. To assess the effectiveness and safety of RAM or RAM-based therapy as a second-line treatment in real-world clinical practice in Eastern Asia and to pave the way for future research, a systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted.
METHODS
Studies published between January 2014 and December 2021 were identified in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, and CBM databases.
RESULTS
This SLR included 23 studies from Japan and South Korea, of which 22 were retrospective and 11 were full-text articles. Most studies investigated RAM + PTX (range of median overall survival [mOS] 7.4-12.2 months; median progression-free survival [mPFS] 3.35-7.0 months). Data were limited for RAM, RAM + albumin-bound paclitaxel, and RAM + taxane. RAM + PTX was associated with longer survival (mOS 9.3-12.2 months vs. 5.2-9.7 months; mPFS 4.1-5.1 months vs. 3.0-4.1 months) than PTX. Patients with prior anti-programmed cell death 1 (anti-PD-1) exposure experienced longer mPFS (4.8 vs. 3.4 months) from RAM + taxane than those without prior anti-PD-1 exposure. Few patients (3.3-6.3%) discontinued RAM or RAM-based therapy because of adverse events (AEs). Hematological toxicities were most frequently occurring AEs and no new safety signals were identified compared to clinical trials.
CONCLUSION
RAM + PTX as a second-line treatment is effective and associated with an acceptable toxicity profile in patients with advanced or metastatic G/GEA in real-world settings of Japan and South Korea. More studies are recommended to further evaluate effectiveness and safety of RAM or RAM-based therapy, especially after anti-PD-1 therapy, in a wider Eastern Asian population.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
INPLASY registration number INPLASY2022120023.
Topics: Ramucirumab; Humans; Stomach Neoplasms; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Adenocarcinoma; Esophagogastric Junction; Republic of Korea; Esophageal Neoplasms; Paclitaxel; Japan; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38619719
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-024-02838-5 -
Medicine Sep 2023High-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy (HR-PDR) is the advanced stage of diabetic retinopathy progression with poor prior treatment efficacy and high rates of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of pan retinal photocoagulation combined with intravitreal anti-VEGF agents for high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
High-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy (HR-PDR) is the advanced stage of diabetic retinopathy progression with poor prior treatment efficacy and high rates of blindness. This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and safety of pan retinal photocoagulation (PRP) combined with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (aVEGF) (PRP + aVEGF) versus PRP monotherapy in HR-PDR patients.
METHODS
A thorough search was performed through PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochran Library from inception to December 18, 2022. Outcome measures included change in central macular thickness, best-corrected visual acuity, fluorescein angiography, incidence of undergoing vitrectomy, and adverse events during the follow-up period.
RESULTS
Eight studies (6 randomized controlled trials and 2 retrospective studies) with 375 eyes were included in this meta-analysis. There were no obvious differences in the changes of best-corrected visual acuity and fluorescein angiography between the PRP + aVEGF and PRP monotherapy groups. However, PRP + aVEGF group had a significant reduction in the change of central macula thickness (standard mean deviations = -1.44, 95%CI = -2.55 to -0.32, P = .01) and the rate of undergoing vitrectomy (odds ratio = 0.20, 95%CI = 0.05-0.83, P = .01). Additionally, the risks of vitreous hemorrhage and other complications were not significantly different between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSION SUBSECTIONS
Our meta-analysis indicated that PRP + aVEGF might have potential benefits in the treatment of HR-PDR patients. However, given several limitations of this study, more research is needed to confirm our findings.
Topics: Humans; Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Diabetes Mellitus; Diabetic Retinopathy; Intravitreal Injections; Laser Coagulation; Retrospective Studies; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factors
PubMed: 37773800
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000034856 -
BMJ Open Jul 2023To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy for myopia choroidal neovascularisation (CNV), and to compare the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison of antivascular endothelial growth factor treatment for myopia choroidal neovascularisation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy for myopia choroidal neovascularisation (CNV), and to compare the efficacy of two different anti-VEGF retreatment criteria.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to 31 July 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anti-VEGF with sham, photodynamic therapy (PDT) or PDT combination therapy in patients with myopia CNV were reviewed and selected. RCTs comparing visual acuity (VA) stabilisation or disease activity as anti-VEGF retreatment criteria were also included in the study.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently conducted data extraction and quality assessment. We used a random-effects model for all analyses. Primary outcomes included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central foveal thickness. Secondary outcomes included number of patients who gained more than three lines in BCVA, number of anti-VEGF injections and ocular adverse event (AE).
RESULTS
Seven RCTs involving 1007 patients were included. Compared with sham and PDT therapy, anti-VEGF therapy achieved better BCVA gains of -0.28 logMAR (95% CI -0.36 to -0.20, p<0.00001) and -0.14 logMAR (95% CI -0.17 to -0.10, p<0.00001), respectively. Both ranibizumab and bevacizumab improved patients' vision better than PDT therapy and no definitive increased risk of ocular AE was observed. Analysis of two small RCTs showed that PDT combination therapy had similar visual improvement and needed fewer anti-VEGF injections compared with anti-VEGF monotherapy (weighted mean difference (WMD)=1.30; 95% CI 1.24 to 1.37, p<0.00001). Anti-VEGF retreatment guided by disease activity criteria resulted in comparable visual improvement and reduced anti-VEGF injections compared with retreatment guided by VA stabilisation (WMD=0.83; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.25, p<0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS
Anti-VEGF therapy is effective and well-tolerated for myopia CNV patients. Anti-VEGF retreatment guided by disease activity criteria can achieve comparable efficacy and potentially reduce anti-VEGF injections.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42021292806.
Topics: Humans; Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Endothelial Growth Factors; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Ranibizumab; Bevacizumab; Choroidal Neovascularization; Myopia; Intravitreal Injections; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37474162
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067921 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Malignant melanoma is a highly aggressive cancer that spreads and metastasizes quickly. In recent years, the antiangiogenic drug bevacizumab has been trialed to treat...
Efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in patients with malignant melanoma: a systematic review and PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and non-comparative clinical studies.
Malignant melanoma is a highly aggressive cancer that spreads and metastasizes quickly. In recent years, the antiangiogenic drug bevacizumab has been trialed to treat malignant melanoma. We conducted the first meta-analysis to examine the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab combined with other drugs in malignant melanoma. We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-comparative clinical studies of bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy, targeted medicine, and interferon to treat malignant melanoma in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Meta-analysis of RCT was performed using Review Manager (version 5.4), and non-comparative meta-analysis was performed using R (version 4.0.3). The primary outcome was the objective response rate. Depending on the heterogeneity of the included studies, the pooled outcomes and 95% CI were calculated using either random-effects or fixed-effect models. Subgroup outcomes were calculated with possible relevant variables. Sensitivity analyses were carried out by excluding each study from the highly heterogeneous pooled results in turn. Funnel plot and Begg's test were used to test the included studies' potential publication bias. The level of significance was set at < 0.05. This meta-analysis included 20 trials: five RCTs and 15 non-comparative clinical studies with a total of 23 bevacizumab intervention arms. In 14 treatment arms, bevacizumab was combined with chemotherapy drugs such as fotemustine, dacarbazine, carboplatin/paclitaxel, and temozolomide. In six treatment arms, bevacizumab was combined with targeted medicines such as imatinib, everolimus, sorafenib, erlotinib, and temsirolimus. There were also six treatment arms that used bevacizumab in combination with interferon. The pooled objective response rate was 15.8% (95% CI, 11.4%-20.2%). Bevacizumab plus carboplatin/paclitaxel significantly increased the overall survival compared to carboplatin/paclitaxel (HR = 0.64, 95% CI, 0.49-0.85, < 0.01). Fatigue, nausea, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia were the most common adverse events. The pooled incidence of hypertension of all bevacizumab arms in malignant melanoma was 32.4% (95% CI, 24.5%-40.3%). This study showed that bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy might be effective and well-tolerated in patients with stage III or IV unresectable malignant melanoma. : [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=304625], identifier [CRD42022304625].
PubMed: 37521468
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1163805 -
Eye (London, England) Apr 2024Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents may occasionally need to be considered for sight-threatening macular pathology in pregnant and breastfeeding...
INTRODUCTION
Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents may occasionally need to be considered for sight-threatening macular pathology in pregnant and breastfeeding women. This is controversial due to the dearth of data on systemic side effects for mother and child. We aimed to expand the evidence base to inform management.
METHODS
Retrospective case series of pregnant and breastfeeding women treated with intravitreal anti-VEGF injections at Oxford Eye Hospital between January 2015 and December 2022. In addition, we conducted a systematic review and combined eligible cases in a narrative synthesis.
RESULTS
We treated six pregnant women with anti-VEGF for diabetic macular oedema(DMO) (n = 5) or choroidal neovascularisation (CNV) (n = 1). Four received ranibizumab whilst two (not known to be pregnant) received aflibercept. Patients known to be pregnant underwent counselling by an obstetric physician. Five pregnancies resulted in live births. Combining our cases with those previously published, treatment of 41 pregnant women (42 pregnancies) are reported. Indications for treatment included CNV (n = 28/41,68%), DMO (n = 7/41,17%) and proliferative diabetic retinopathy (n = 6/41,15%). Bevacizumab (n = 22/41,54%) and ranibizumab (n = 17/41,41%) were given more frequently than aflibercept (n = 2/41,5%). Many (n = 16/41,40%) were unaware of their pregnancy when treated. Most pregnancies resulted in live births (n = 34/42,81%). First trimester miscarriages (n = 5/42,12%) and stillbirths (n = 3/42,7%) mostly occurred in women with significant risk factors.
CONCLUSION
Intravitreal anti-VEGF injections may not necessarily compromise obstetric outcomes, although clear associations cannot be drawn due to small numbers and confounders from high rates of first trimester miscarriages in general and inherently high-risk pregnancies. It may be worth considering routinely investigating pregnancy and breastfeeding status in women of childbearing age prior to each injection, as part of anti-VEGF treatment protocols.
Topics: Pregnancy; Child; Female; Humans; Ranibizumab; Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Endothelial Growth Factors; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Abortion, Spontaneous; Breast Feeding; Retrospective Studies; Bevacizumab; Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor; Diabetic Retinopathy; Choroidal Neovascularization; Intravitreal Injections; Recombinant Fusion Proteins
PubMed: 37980398
DOI: 10.1038/s41433-023-02811-6 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2023The EGFR gene encodes a protein that stimulates molecular pathways that allow the growth and development of the tumor microenvironment. The current preferred tyrosine...
Effectiveness and safety of the bevacizumab and erlotinib combination erlotinib alone in EGFR mutant metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The EGFR gene encodes a protein that stimulates molecular pathways that allow the growth and development of the tumor microenvironment. The current preferred tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) for the first-line treatment of EGFRm metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is osimertinib. However, the combination of angiogenesis inhibitors and TKI has produced discordant results. We aimed to assess the effects of the bevacizumab and erlotinib combination in EGFRm metastatic NSCLC.
METHODS
Using eligibility criteria focused on patients with EGFRm metastatic NSCLC treated with bevacizumab and erlotinib, we searched databases including clinical trial randomized studies and reviews published until April 15, 2023 in Medline (PubMed), Scopus, and Embase. Eight clinical trials (1,052 patients) were selected from 1,343 articles for quantitative and qualitative assessment. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Data were synthesized through random-effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS
The bevacizumab and erlotinib combination significantly improved the progression-free survival (PFS) (log(HR) = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.54-0.73, < 0.001) and overall response ratio (ORR) (RR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97, = 0.03). However, it did not improve the overall survival (log(HR) = 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78-1.10, = 0.38) and was associated with higher serious adverse events (SAEs) (OR = 3.48; 95% CI, 1.76-6.88, = 0.005). A subgroup analysis suggested similar benefits in different mutation subtypes and brain metastasis condition. The evidence is limited by a moderate risk of bias across studies and heterogeneity in the reporting of SAEs.
CONCLUSIONS
The bevacizumab and erlotinib combination significantly improved PFS and ORR in EGFRm metastatic NSCLC but were also associated with higher-grade (≥3) adverse events. These results suggest that while the combination therapy may enhance progression-free survival and overall response, it does not improve the overall survival and is associated with higher toxicity. Thus, the treatment should be personalized based on individual patient comorbidities. Further prospective trials are needed to validate these results.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#searchadvanced, identifier CDR 42022364692.
PubMed: 38322283
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1335373 -
Medicine Sep 2023To assess the safety and efficacy of sorafenib and sunitinib as first-line treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), to provide evidence-based support for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Sorafenib exhibits lower toxicity and comparable efficacy to sunitinib as a first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
To assess the safety and efficacy of sorafenib and sunitinib as first-line treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), to provide evidence-based support for clinical decision-making regarding rational drug use.
METHODS
Until May 10, 2023, a comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases to identify clinical studies comparing sorafenib with sunitinib as first-line treatment for mRCC. The literature was screened, data extracted, and quality evaluated independently by 2 researchers. Meta-analysis was conducted using Revman5.4 software.
RESULTS
A total of 3741 patients were enrolled in 20 studies. The meta-analysis results indicated that there were no significant differences in the 2- and 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates between the sorafenib and sunitinib groups (P > .05). The disease control rate (DCR) was comparable between the 2 groups (P > .05), while the objective response rate (ORR) was higher in the sunitinib group (P = .03). However, subgroup analysis revealed no significant differences in ORR, DCR, 2- and 5-year PFS, and OS rates between sorafenib and sunitinib among both Asian populations as well as European and American populations (P > .05). In terms of drug-related adverse events, the incidence of grade ≥ 3 hypertension, leukopenia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, nausea and vomiting were significantly lower in the sorafenib group compared to the sunitinib group (P < .05).
CONCLUSION
In the first-line treatment of mRCC, sorafenib exhibits comparable efficacy to sunitinib but with lower toxicity.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Sorafenib; Sunitinib; Kidney Neoplasms; Neutropenia
PubMed: 37682147
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000034983 -
Survey of Ophthalmology 2024There is a need to identify accurately prognostic factors that determine the progression of intermediate to late-stage age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Currently,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
There is a need to identify accurately prognostic factors that determine the progression of intermediate to late-stage age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Currently, clinicians cannot provide individualised prognoses of disease progression. Moreover, enriching clinical trials with rapid progressors may facilitate delivery of shorter intervention trials aimed at delaying or preventing progression to late AMD. Thus, we performed a systematic review to outline and assess the accuracy of reporting prognostic factors for the progression of intermediate to late AMD. A meta-analysis was originally planned. Synonyms of AMD and disease progression were used to search Medline and EMBASE for articles investigating AMD progression published between 1991 and 2021. Initial search results included 3229 articles. Predetermined eligibility criteria were employed to systematically screen papers by two reviewers working independently and in duplicate. Quality appraisal and data extraction were performed by a team of reviewers. Only 6 studies met the eligibility criteria. Based on these articles, exploratory prognostic factors for progression of intermediate to late AMD included phenotypic features (e.g. location and size of drusen), age, smoking status, ocular and systemic co-morbidities, race, and genotype. Overall, study heterogeneity precluded reporting by forest plots and meta-analysis. The most commonly reported prognostic factors were baseline drusen volume/size, which was associated with progression to neovascular AMD, and outer retinal thinning linked to progression to geographic atrophy. In conclusion, poor methodological quality of included studies warrants cautious interpretation of our findings. Rigorous studies are warranted to provide robust evidence in the future.
Topics: Humans; Prognosis; Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Disease Progression; Visual Acuity; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Wet Macular Degeneration; Retinal Drusen
PubMed: 37890677
DOI: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2023.10.010 -
Indian Journal of Ophthalmology Nov 2023Intravitreal injection of anti- Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF)is commonly used to treat patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). However, the injection...
Intravitreal injection of anti- Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF)is commonly used to treat patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). However, the injection alone requires high cost and compliance. Combining micropulse subthreshold laser (MPSL) and anti-VEGF is a new approach to treating DME. This study intended to answer the question of whether MPSL plus anti-VEGF is effective compared to anti-VEGF alone. The following terms were used in PubMed, clinicaltrial.gov, and Google Scholar: anti-VEGF, DME, MPSL, and diabetic retinopathy. All studies of DME comparing the intervention of MPSL plus anti-VEGF and VEGF alone between the years 2017-2021 were included. Studies with no comparison between the intervention and control group, abstract-only papers, case reports, case series, and systematic review studies were excluded. Five Randomized Controlled Trial (RCTs) and three retrospective studies were analyzed. Four studies found that best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improved in both therapies. Central macular thickness in six studies was also improved. The improvement differences between both therapies were insignificant and the number of anti-VEGF injections was significantly lower in combination therapy. These studies show equal outcomes of both therapies. The reduced number of anti-VEGF injections of the combination therapy could improve the management of DME in terms of cost-effectiveness. Further analysis should be conducted to pool the data from the studies and evaluate the overall outcome.
Topics: Humans; Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Bevacizumab; Diabetes Mellitus; Diabetic Retinopathy; Intravitreal Injections; Lasers; Macular Edema; Ranibizumab; Retrospective Studies; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 37870005
DOI: 10.4103/IJO.IJO_519_23