-
Critical Reviews in Oncology/hematology Jul 2022To assess comparative effectiveness of adjuvant therapies for renal cell carcinoma and quantify the absolute benefit of adjuvant treatments by clinicopathological risk... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To assess comparative effectiveness of adjuvant therapies for renal cell carcinoma and quantify the absolute benefit of adjuvant treatments by clinicopathological risk groups.
METHODS
This 'living' review was conducted using Living Interactive Evidence (LIvE) synthesis framework.
RESULTS
The 'living' results are available on an interactive website. This network meta-analysis, including six RCTs with 7525 participants, showed that pembrolizumab (rank 1) significantly improved disease-free survival and overall survival compared with sunitinib but not when compared to pazopanib, and axitinib. The risk of treatment-related grade 3 or higher adverse events was increased with pembrolizumab as compared to placebo and axitinib but not when compared to sunitinib. The absolute benefit of adjuvant pembrolizumab increases substantially with larger tumor size, nodal positivity and higher Leibovich scores.
CONCLUSION
Current evidence suggests that pembrolizumab delays disease progression compared to sunitinib. A risk-adapted strategy should be used in patients undergoing consideration for treatment with adjuvant pembrolizumab.
Topics: Axitinib; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Network Meta-Analysis; Sunitinib
PubMed: 35537621
DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2022.103706 -
Clinical Genitourinary Cancer Dec 2019Pazopanib is a protein tyrosine kinase inhibitor that limits tumor growth through angiogenesis inhibition. The use of other protein tyrosine kinase inhibitors,...
Pazopanib is a protein tyrosine kinase inhibitor that limits tumor growth through angiogenesis inhibition. The use of other protein tyrosine kinase inhibitors, specifically sunitinib, within non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) has led to increased survival with a decreased adverse event profile. The data for the treatment of nccRCC is limited, with most studies evaluating the use of sunitinib. Therefore, the evaluation of pazopanib is of particular clinical interest in the treatment of nccRCC. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy and safety of pazopanib for nccRCC. PubMed (1946 to April 2019) and Embase (1947 to April 2019) were queried using the search term combination: protein tyrosine kinase inhibitor or pazopanib and non clear cell renal cell carcinoma or non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Studies evaluating clinical outcomes of pazopanib for nccRCC were included, represented by 3 retrospective cohort studies and 1 single-arm, open-label prospective study. In patients with advanced or metastatic nccRCC, treatment with pazopanib resulted in positive effects for multiple markers of efficacy, including progression-free survival, overall survival, and objective response rates. The median duration of follow-up ranged from 11.8 months to 24.4 months. Pazopanib was well-tolerated in most studies. The most commonly reported adverse events were fatigue, diarrhea, and hypertension. Pazopanib appears to be an effective and safe option for the treatment of advanced or metastatic nccRCC. Future investigation with larger randomized controlled trials is warranted to further define the role of pazopanib in patients with nccRCC.
Topics: Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Clinical Trials as Topic; Diarrhea; Fatigue; Humans; Hypertension; Indazoles; Kidney Neoplasms; Progression-Free Survival; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Pyrimidines; Sulfonamides
PubMed: 31585694
DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2019.09.001 -
Scientific Reports Mar 2022The efficacy of anti-angiogenic agents (AAAs) in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) remains unclear. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The efficacy of anti-angiogenic agents (AAAs) in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) remains unclear. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to synthesize evidence of their comparative effectiveness for improving overall survival (OS) among EOC patients. We searched six databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from their inception to February 2021. We performed an NMA with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95%-confidence intervals (CIs) to evaluate comparative effectiveness among different AAAs in chemotherapy-naïve and recurrent EOC. P-score was used to provide an effectiveness hierarchy ranking. Sensitivity NMA was carried out by focusing on studies that reported high-risk chemotherapy-naïve, platinum-resistant, and platinum-sensitive EOC. The primary outcome was OS. We identified 23 RCTs that assessed the effectiveness of AAAs. In recurrent EOC, concurrent use of trebananib (10 mg/kg) with chemotherapy was likely to be the best option (P-score: 0.88, HR 1.67, 95% CI 0.94; 2.94). The NMA indicated that bevacizumab plus chemotherapy followed by maintenance bevacizumab (P-score: 0.99) and pazopanib combined with chemotherapy (P-score: 0.79) both had the highest probability of being the best intervention for improving OS in high-risk chemotherapy-naïve and platinum-resistant EOC, respectively. AAAs may not play a significant clinical role in non-high-risk chemotherapy-naïve and platinum-sensitive EOC.
Topics: Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Bevacizumab; Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial; Female; Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Network Meta-Analysis; Ovarian Neoplasms
PubMed: 35264616
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-07731-1 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2023There are a variety of treatment options for recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, and the optimal specific treatment still remains to be determined. Therefore,...
BACKGROUND
There are a variety of treatment options for recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, and the optimal specific treatment still remains to be determined. Therefore, this Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the optimal treatment options for recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.
METHODS
Pubmed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for articles published until 15 June 2022. The outcome measures for this meta-analysis were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs) of Grade 3-4. The Cochrane assessment tool for risk of bias was used to evaluate the risk of bias of the included original studies. The Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. This study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022347273).
RESULTS
Our systematic review included 11 RCTs involving 1871 patients and 11 treatments other than chemotherapy. The results of meta-analysis showed that the overall survival (OS) was the highest in adavosertib + gemcitabine compared with conventional chemotherapy, (HR=0.56,95%CI:0.35-0.91), followed by sorafenib + topotecan (HR=0.65, 95%CI:0.45-0.93). In addition, Adavosertib + Gemcitabine regimen had the highest PFS (HR=0.55,95%CI:0.34-0.88), followed by Bevacizumab + Gemcitabine regimen (HR=0.48,95%CI:0.38-0.60) and the immunotherapy of nivolumab was the safest (HR=0.164,95%CI:0.312-0.871) with least adverse events of Grades 3-4.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study indicated that Adavosertib (WEE1 kinase-inhibitor) + gemcitabine regimen and Bevacizumab + Gemcitabine regimen would be significantly beneficial to patients with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, and could be preferred for recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. The immunotherapeutic agent, Nivolumab, is of considerable safety, with a low risk for grade-III or IV adverse events. Its safety is comparable to Adavosertib + gemcitabine regimen. Pazopanib + Paclitaxel (weekly regimen), Sorafenib + Topotecan/Nivolumab could be selected if there are contraindications of the above strategies.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022347273.
PubMed: 37114128
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1114484 -
Anti-cancer Drugs Jan 2022Pyoderma gangrenosum is a rare ulcerative dermatosis. It may be caused by some drugs, including small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). The aim of this study...
Pyoderma gangrenosum is a rare ulcerative dermatosis. It may be caused by some drugs, including small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). The aim of this study was to evaluate the reported evidence of pyoderma gangrenosum associated with the use of these drugs. A systematic electronic literature search of PubMed and Embase was conducted. In these databases, search terms describing pyoderma gangrenosum were combined with TKIs. Fifteen case reports (eight cases associated with sunitinib, two with imatinib, two with ibrutinib, one with gefitinib, one with pazopanib, and one with dabrafenib and trametinib) were identified over the 14 years. The average Naranjo score of these cases is 6.6, which indicates a probable adverse drug reaction. Pyoderma gangrenosum is a probable and reversible drug reaction associated with some TKIs. Detailed medical history can help to prompt diagnosis of drug-induced pyoderma gangrenosum. Clinicians should be aware of TKI-associated pyoderma gangrenosum when caring for the skin of oncologic patients undergoing therapy with kinase inhibitors.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Patient Acuity; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Pyoderma Gangrenosum
PubMed: 34282745
DOI: 10.1097/CAD.0000000000001140 -
Kidney Cancer (Clifton, Va.) 2020There have been a number of recent advances in the management of advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). However, the majority of these studies excluded...
INTRODUCTION
There have been a number of recent advances in the management of advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). However, the majority of these studies excluded patients with non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC), and optimal management of nccRCC remains unknown.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to evaluate systemic treatment options in locally advanced or metastatic nccRCC between 2000-2019. Randomized controlled trials, single-arm phase II-IV trials, and prospective analyses of medication access programs were included. The primary outcome measures were progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR).
RESULTS
A total of 31 studies were included in the final analysis. There was the highest level of evidence to support first-line treatment of nccRCC with sunitinib. Additional single-arm trials support the use of other vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors with axitinib and pazopanib, as well as mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibition with temsirolimus or everolimus +/- bevacizumab. Immune checkpoint inhibition has an emerging role in nccRCC, but optimal sequencing of available options is not clear. Prospective data to support the use of newer immunotherapy combinations are lacking. Treatment for collecting duct carcinoma remains platinum-based chemotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS
The availability of randomized trials in nccRCC is limited, and most studies include outcomes for nccRCC as a group, making conclusions about efficacy by subtype difficult. This systematic review supports consensus guidelines recommending sunitinib or clinical trial enrollment as preferred first-line treatment options for nccRCC, but also suggests a more nuanced approach to management and new options for therapy such as immune checkpoint inhibition.
PubMed: 34435168
DOI: 10.3233/kca-190078 -
Journal of the Chinese Medical... Jan 2024Vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGF-TKIs) are a common cancer treatment. However, the pharmacologic characteristics of VEGF-TKIs may... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Major adverse cardiovascular events of vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors among patients with different malignancy: A systemic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGF-TKIs) are a common cancer treatment. However, the pharmacologic characteristics of VEGF-TKIs may influence cardiovascular risks. The relative risks of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) associated with VEGF-TKIs are poorly understood.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception until August 31, 2021, for phase II/III randomized controlled trials of 11 VEGF-TKIs (axitinib, cabozantinib, lenvatinib, pazopanib, ponatinib, ripretinib, regorafenib, sorafenib, sunitinib, tivozanib, and vandetanib). The endpoints were heart failure, thromboembolism, and cardiovascular death. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to calculate the risk of VEGF-TKI among users by comparing it to nonusers. Pairwise meta-analyses with a random-effects model were used to estimate the risks of the various VEGF-TKIs. We estimated ranked probability with a P-score and assessed credibility using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis framework.
RESULTS
We identified 69 trials involving 30 180 patients with cancer. The highest risk of MACEs was associated with high-potency tivazonib (odds ratio [OR]: 3.34), lenvatinib (OR: 3.26), and axitinib (OR: 2.04), followed by low-potency pazopanib (OR: 1.79), sorafenib (OR: 1.77), and sunitinib (OR: 1.66). The risk of heart failure significantly increased in association with less-selective sorafenib (OR: 3.53), pazopanib (OR: 3.10), and sunitinib (OR: 2.65). The risk of thromboembolism significantly increased in association with nonselective lenvatinib (OR: 3.12), sorafenib (OR: 1.54), and sunitinib (OR: 1.53). Higher potency (tivozanib, axitinib) and lower selectivity (sorafenib, vandetanib, pazopanib, sunitinib) were associated with a higher probability of heart failure. Low selectivity (lenvatinib, cabozantinib, sorafenib, sunitinib) was associated with a higher probability of thromboembolism.
CONCLUSION
Higher-potency and lower-selectivity VEGF-TKIs may influence the risks of MACEs, heart failure, and thromboembolism. These findings may facilitate evidence-based decision-making in clinical practice.
Topics: Humans; Sunitinib; Antineoplastic Agents; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Sorafenib; Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors; Axitinib; Network Meta-Analysis; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Neoplasms; Heart Failure; Thromboembolism
PubMed: 37991373
DOI: 10.1097/JCMA.0000000000001026 -
Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology 2020Effective systemic treatment of non-clear cell renal carcinoma (nccRCC) is still an unmet clinical need, with few studies to support an evidence-based approach. To date,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Effective systemic treatment of non-clear cell renal carcinoma (nccRCC) is still an unmet clinical need, with few studies to support an evidence-based approach. To date, the only recommended standard first-line treatment is sunitinib. Pazopanib may also be used in nccRCC but its place in therapy is not clearly established. It has comparable efficacy and better tolerability than sunitinib in clear cell renal carcinoma. Our objective was to review the use of pazopanib in metastatic nccRCC.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines. Any type of study reporting the use of pazopanib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma including cases with non-clear cell histology was eligible.
RESULTS
In all, 15 studies were included in our analysis, including a total of 318 nccRCC patients treated with pazopanib. Most studies were retrospective ( = 12); three were prospective trials. The specific outcomes of nccRCC patients were reported by four studies. Pazopanib alone as first-line treatment gave overall response rates ranging from 27% to 33%, disease control rates of 81-89%, median progression free survival of 8.1-16.5 months and median overall survival of 17.3-31.0 months. Grade 3-4 adverse events rates were 21-55%.
CONCLUSION
The present review provides for the first time a systematic summary of evidence about the possible use of pazopanib as first-line treatment for nccRCC, with a favorable outcome despite the low strength of evidence. Pazopanib could be considered as a possible therapeutic option in this setting.
PubMed: 32550862
DOI: 10.1177/1758835920915303 -
Internal and Emergency Medicine Aug 2021Low muscle mass has been associated with worse clinical outcomes in various cancers. This work investigated whether, during tyrosine kinases inhibitors (TKIs) therapy,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Low muscle mass has been associated with worse clinical outcomes in various cancers. This work investigated whether, during tyrosine kinases inhibitors (TKIs) therapy, low muscle mass was associated with treatment toxicity and survival outcomes. A systematic literature search was performed in Pubmed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases from inception to June 2020, based on fixed inclusion and exclusion criteria. Effect sizes were estimated with hazard ratios (HR) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and heterogeneity was assessed by measuring inconsistency (I) based on the Chi squared test. A total of 24 retrospective studies were identified, enrolling patients treated with sorafenib (n = 12), sunitinib (n = 6), lenvatinib (n = 3), regorafenib (n = 2), gefitinib (n = 1), imatinib (n = 1), and pazopanib (n = 1). Thirteen studies were deemed eligible for pooled analyses. Meta-analyses found a significant effect of low muscle mass on dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) (OR 2.40, 95% CI 1.26-4.58, p = 0.008, I = 51%) in patients treated with TKI therapy. A subgroup analysis by treatment showed an association between DLT and low muscle during sorafenib or sunitinib, although not significant. A significant association between low skeletal muscle index and poorer overall survival was observed in HCC patients treated with sorafenib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.07-1.96, p = 0.02). For other TKIs, although some results showed an association between low muscle mass and worse outcomes, the number of studies for each TKI therapy was too small to reach conclusions. Skeletal muscle mass could influence the prognosis of some TKI-treated patients. This effect is demonstrated in sorafenib-treated HCC patients but remains almost unexplored in other cancer patients undergoing TKI therapy. Further prospective studies with large sample size and sufficient follow-up are needed to clarify the role of muscle mass in the metabolism of TKI-based cancer treatment, and its association with toxicity and survival.
Topics: Gefitinib; Humans; Imatinib Mesylate; Indazoles; Muscle, Skeletal; Neoplasms; Phenylurea Compounds; Prognosis; Pyrazoles; Pyridines; Pyrimidines; Quinolines; Sorafenib; Sulfonamides; Sunitinib; Survival Analysis
PubMed: 33337518
DOI: 10.1007/s11739-020-02589-5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Several comparative randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed including combinations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Several comparative randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed including combinations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors since the publication of a Cochrane Review on targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in 2008. This review represents an update of that original review.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of targeted therapies for clear cell mRCC in patients naïve to systemic therapy.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed a comprehensive search with no restrictions on language or publication status. The date of the latest search was 18 June 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials, recruiting patients with clear cell mRCC naïve to previous systemic treatment. The index intervention was any TKI-based targeted therapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the included studies and extracted data for the primary outcomes: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and serious adverse events (SAEs); and the secondary outcomes: health-related quality of life (QoL), response rate and minor adverse events (AEs). We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and rated the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 RCTs reporting on 11,590 participants randomised across 18 comparisons. This abstract focuses on the primary outcomes of select comparisons. 1. Pazopanib versus sunitinib Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in PFS as compared to sunitinib (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.23; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 420 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 18 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 76 fewer to 38 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in OS compared to sunitinib (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.06; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 27 more OSs (95% CI 19 fewer to 70 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in SAEs as compared to sunitinib (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09; 1 study, 1102 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 734 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more participants experiencing SAEs (95% CI 44 fewer to 66 more) per 1000 participants. 2. Sunitinib versus avelumab and axitinib Sunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to avelumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.80; 1 study, 886 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 130 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 209 fewer to 53 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in OS (HR 1.28, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.79; 1 study, 886 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 890 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 29 fewer OSs (95% CI 78 fewer to 8 more) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in SAEs (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.10; 1 study, 873 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 705 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more SAEs (95% CI 49 fewer to 71 more) per 1000 participants. 3. Sunitinib versus pembrolizumab and axitinib Sunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.76; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 590 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 125 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 195 fewer to 56 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably reduces OS (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.65; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 880 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 96 fewer OSs (95% CI 167 fewer to 40 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may reduce SAEs as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.02; 1 study, 854 participants; low-certainty evidence) although the CI includes the possibility of no effect. Based on the control event risk of 604 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 60 fewer SAEs (95% CI 115 fewer to 12 more) per 1000 participants. 4. Sunitinib versus nivolumab and ipilimumab Sunitinib may reduce PFS as compared to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.52; 1 study, 847 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 280 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months' follow-up, this corresponds to 89 fewer PFSs (95% CI 136 fewer to 37 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib reduces OS (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.89; 1 study, 847 participants; high-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk 600 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months, this would result in 140 fewer OSs (95% CI 219 fewer to 67 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably increases SAEs (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.53; 1 study, 1082 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 457 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 169 more SAEs (95% CI 101 more to 242 more) per 1000 participants.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the low to high certainty of evidence, several combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to be superior to single-agent targeted therapy in terms of PFS and OS, and with a favourable AE profile. Some single-agent targeted therapies demonstrated a similar or improved oncological outcome compared to others; minor differences were observed for AE within this group. The certainty of evidence was variable ranging from high to very low and all comparisons were based on single trials.
Topics: Adult; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological; Axitinib; Bevacizumab; Bias; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Everolimus; Humans; Indazoles; Ipilimumab; Kidney Neoplasms; Phenylurea Compounds; Progression-Free Survival; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Pyrimidines; Quality of Life; Quinolines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor; Sirolimus; Sorafenib; Sulfonamides; Sunitinib
PubMed: 33058158
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012796.pub2