-
Future Oncology (London, England) Apr 2023To review clinical evidence for current and emerging treatments for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are ineligible for first-line induction chemotherapy.... (Review)
Review
To review clinical evidence for current and emerging treatments for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are ineligible for first-line induction chemotherapy. A systematic literature review was performed (28 October 2021) to identify clinical outcomes including overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), relapse-free survival (RFS) and adverse events (AEs). Of 233 references that met prespecified criteria, 26 studies were included. Adding targeted therapies (venetoclax/ivosidenib) to hypomethylating agents (HMAs) yielded better OS hazard ratios (HRs) (0.44-0.66) and EFS HRs (0.33-0.63) compared with other agents. AEs were more frequent with combination therapies than control arms, except with ivosidenib plus azacitidine. Targeted therapy combined with a HMA shows the most promising results in this difficult-to-treat population.
Topics: Humans; Cytarabine; Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute; Azacitidine; Combined Modality Therapy; Progression-Free Survival; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Induction Chemotherapy
PubMed: 37170899
DOI: 10.2217/fon-2022-1286 -
International Forum of Allergy &... Jan 2024The heterogeneity of existing studies, along with the fact that there are no published head-to-head trials, are the main reasons for the lack of guidelines regarding the... (Review)
Review
Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) treated with omalizumab, dupilumab, or mepolizumab: A systematic review of the current knowledge towards an attempt to compare agents' efficacy.
BACKGROUND
The heterogeneity of existing studies, along with the fact that there are no published head-to-head trials, are the main reasons for the lack of guidelines regarding the selection of the proper biologic in treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with nasal polyps. The aim of this study is to summarize the current knowledge regarding the efficacy of omalizumab, dupilumab, and mepolizumab in CRS treatment. We also attempt to proceed to an indirect comparison of the agents and try to answer the tricky question: which agent to select and why?
METHODS
An extensive search in English literature was conducted in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Database/Library. Eligibility criteria included papers with full text published in English, adult population studies, clearly described intervention protocol, and documented primary and secondary outcomes.
RESULTS
The studies included numbered 37. All agents provided significant improvement in polyp size, sinuses opacification, severity of symptoms, need for surgery and systemic corticosteroids use. Analysis of available systematic reviews, meta-analyses and indirect treatment comparison studies showed that dupilumab appeared to be the most beneficial agent, in terms of primary and secondary outcomes. However, these results are of relatively low level of evidence due to several methodological limitations.
CONCLUSIONS
Although the present analysis showed a moderate supremacy of dupilumab, there is still no evidence-based answer to the question "which biologic agent is the most effective in CRS treatment?" Improved statistical methodology, head-to-head trials, and real-life studies could lead to more robust conclusions, establishing the real role of the specific biologic agents.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Nasal Polyps; Omalizumab; Rhinosinusitis; Sinusitis; Chronic Disease; Biological Products; Rhinitis; Quality of Life; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized
PubMed: 37394893
DOI: 10.1002/alr.23234 -
Journal of Lasers in Medical Sciences 2020High-intensity laser therapy (HILT) has been used more recently in the therapeutic protocols of pain managements. Adding therapeutic interventions to laser therapy is... (Review)
Review
High-intensity laser therapy (HILT) has been used more recently in the therapeutic protocols of pain managements. Adding therapeutic interventions to laser therapy is usual in clinical practice. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of HILT and beneficial effects of adding cointerventions to HILT in musculoskeletal pain management. The following databases were searched up to August 2018: Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Google Scholar, Springer and ISI. The keywords of pain, HILT, high power laser therapy, laser therapy, photobiomodulation, physical therapy and rehabilitation were searched. The quality of the articles was assessed using the PEDro scale. The primary measure was pain severity expected to be reported in all studies. Effect size was calculated as standardized mean differences divided by the standard deviation of either the treatment or other group. Initially 52 potential studies were found. Eighteen of these studies were excluded based on title and abstract. The full text of 34 remaining articles was screened and 15 of the studies were excluded. All included studies had high quality (PEDro ≥7). Approximately, 94% of included articles (n=18) revealed positive effects of HILT on pain. The effect sizes for HILT and placebo/comparator groups were 0.9-9.11 and 0.21-11.22 respectively. Also, the differences of effect size between two groups were between 0.03 to 5.85. It is early to determine that HILT may be an effective non-invasive agent in the management of musculoskeletal pain, as few studies have shown its clinical efficacy. Adding related co-interventions to HILT may enhance the beneficial effects of laser therapy. The variability of the study methods and outcomes suggests that further long-term follow-up, randomized controlled clinical trials with appropriate methodological design are needed regarding the effectiveness of HILT on pain.
PubMed: 32099632
DOI: 10.15171/jlms.2020.14 -
The American Journal of Emergency... Jan 2022Safe and effective tranquilization of the acutely agitated patient is challenging, and head-to-head comparisons of medications are limited. We aimed to identify the most... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Safe and effective tranquilization of the acutely agitated patient is challenging, and head-to-head comparisons of medications are limited. We aimed to identify the most optimal agent(s) for rapid tranquilization of the severely agitated patient in the emergency department (ED).
METHODS
The protocol for systematic review was registered (PROSPERO; CRD42020212534). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Database/CENTRAL from inception to June 2, 2021. We limited studies to randomized controlled trials that enrolled adult ED patients with severe agitation and compared drugs for rapid tranquilization. Predetermined outcomes were: 1) Adequate sedation within 30 min (effectiveness), 2) Immediate, serious adverse event - cardiac arrest, ventricular tachydysrhythmia, endotracheal intubation, laryngospasm, hypoxemia, hypotension (safety), and 3) Time to adequate sedation (effect onset). We extracted data according to PRISMA-NMA and appraised trials using Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We performed Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) using a Markov Chain Monte Carlo method with random-effects model and vague prior distribution to calculate odds ratios with 95% credible intervals for dichotomous outcomes and frequentist NMA to calculate mean differences with 95% confidence intervals for continuous outcomes. We assessed confidence in results using CINeMA. We used surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curves to rank agent(s) for each outcome.
RESULTS
Eleven studies provided data for effectiveness (1142 patients) and safety (1147 patients). Data was insufficient for effect onset. The NMA found that ketamine (SUCRA = 93.0%) is most likely to have superior effectiveness; droperidol-midazolam (SUCRA = 78.8%) is most likely to be safest. There are concerns with study quality and imprecision. Quality of the point estimates varied for effectiveness but mostly rated "very low" for safety.
CONCLUSIONS
Available evidence suggests that ketamine and droperidol have intermediate effectiveness for rapid tranquilization of the severely agitated patient in the ED. There is insufficient evidence to definitively determine which agent(s) may be safest or fastest-acting. Further, direct-comparison study of ketamine and droperidol is recommended.
Topics: Adult; Droperidol; Emergence Delirium; Emergency Service, Hospital; Humans; Ketamine; Network Meta-Analysis; Psychomotor Agitation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34823192
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2021.11.011 -
Human Reproduction Update Feb 2020Despite great advances in assisted reproductive technology, poor ovarian response (POR) is still considered as one of the most challenging tasks in reproductive medicine. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Despite great advances in assisted reproductive technology, poor ovarian response (POR) is still considered as one of the most challenging tasks in reproductive medicine.
OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE
The aim of this systemic review is to evaluate the role of different adjuvant treatment strategies on the probability of pregnancy achievement in poor responders undergoing IVF. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 10 adjuvant treatments [testosterone, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), letrozole, recombinant LH, recombinant hCG, oestradiol, clomiphene citrate, progesterone, growth hormone (GH) and coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10)] were included.
SEARCH METHODS
Relevant studies published in the English language were comprehensively selected using PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) until 11 July 2018. We included studies that investigated various adjuvant agents, including androgen and androgen-modulating agents, oestrogen, progesterone, clomiphene citrate, GH and CoQ10, during IVF treatment and reported subsequent pregnancy outcomes. The administration of GnRH analogs and gonadotrophins without adjuvant treatment was set as the control. We measured study quality based on the methodology and categories listed in the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. This review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018086217).
OUTCOMES
Of the 1124 studies initially identified, 46 trials reporting on 6312 women were included in this systematic review, while 19 trials defining POR using the Bologna criteria reporting 2677 women were included in the network meta-analysis. Compared with controls, DHEA and CoQ10 treatments resulted in a significantly higher chance of clinical pregnancy [odds ratio (OR) 2.46, 95% CI 1.16 to 5.23; 2.22, 1.08-4.58, respectively]. With regard to the number of retrieved oocytes, HCG, oestradiol and GH treatments had the highest number of oocytes retrieved [weighted mean difference (WMD) 2.08, 0.72 to 3.44; 2.02, 0.23 to 3.81; 1.72, 0.98 to 2.46, compared with controls, respectively]. With regard to the number of embryos transferred, testosterone and GH treatment led to the highest number of embryos transferred (WMD 0.72, 0.11 to 1.33; 0.67, 0.43 to 0.92; compared with controls, respectively). Moreover, GH resulted in the highest oestradiol level on the HCG day (WMD 797.63, 466.45 to 1128.81, compared with controls). Clomiphene citrate, letrozole and GH groups used the lowest dosages of gonadotrophins for ovarian stimulation (WMD 1760.00, -2890.55 to -629.45; -1110.17, -1753.37 to -466.96; -875.91, -1433.29 to -282.52; compared with controls, respectively). CoQ10 led to the lowest global cancelation rate (OR 0.33, 0.15 to 0.74, compared with controls).
WIDER IMPLICATIONS
For patients with POR, controlled ovarian stimulation protocols using adjuvant treatment with DHEA, CoQ10 and GH showed better clinical outcomes in terms of achieving pregnancy, and a lower dosage of gonadotrophin required for ovulation induction. Furthermore, high-level RCT studies using uniform standards for POR need to be incorporated into future meta-analyses.
Topics: Clomiphene; Combined Modality Therapy; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Drug Resistance; Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Gonadotropins; Humans; Infertility, Female; Letrozole; Network Meta-Analysis; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Pregnancy Rate
PubMed: 32045470
DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmz046 -
European Review For Medical and... Mar 2021Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is a severe drug-related side effect mostly seen in the maxillofacial region of patients under current or previous...
OBJECTIVE
Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is a severe drug-related side effect mostly seen in the maxillofacial region of patients under current or previous treatment with antiresorptive and/or angiogenic agents. There is a wide range of treatment options explained in literature for the management of this condition, from conservative treatments to surgical procedures of various levels of invasiveness, which are sometimes supplemented with adjunctive therapies. The present systematic review aimed at evaluating the treatment options of MRONJ in terms of successful outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched. The search was limited to clinical studies involving human subjects with at least 3 cases. There was no other limitation for language, publication date, and study design for the articles to be included. A hand search of the bibliographies of identified articles was also performed. The evaluation criterion was an improvement in the healing of the treated site after treatment procedures.
RESULTS
After evaluation of the full text of the articles, 118 articles were selected for evaluation (15 platelet concentrates, 4 teriparatide, 10 laser therapy, 3 hyperbaric oxygen, 2 ozone applications, 9 conservative protocols, and 75 surgical interventions articles). The evaluated articles reported positive improvements in healing/staging of the osteonecrosis sites.
CONCLUSIONS
Due to the low evidence level and the limited sample size of the studies included, the results of this review must be cautiously interpreted. However, they can be suggestive for evaluating the possible benefits of these treatment options in MRONJ management. Further prospective comparative studies with a large sample size are urgently needed to confirm the results.
Topics: Bisphosphonate-Associated Osteonecrosis of the Jaw; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Humans; Laser Therapy
PubMed: 33829453
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202103_25430 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2020Increased intracranial pressure has been shown to be strongly associated with poor neurological outcomes and mortality for patients with acute traumatic brain injury.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Increased intracranial pressure has been shown to be strongly associated with poor neurological outcomes and mortality for patients with acute traumatic brain injury. Currently, most efforts to treat these injuries focus on controlling the intracranial pressure. Hypertonic saline is a hyperosmolar therapy that is used in traumatic brain injury to reduce intracranial pressure. The effectiveness of hypertonic saline compared with other intracranial pressure-lowering agents in the management of acute traumatic brain injury is still debated, both in the short and the long term.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of hypertonic saline versus other intracranial pressure-lowering agents in the management of acute traumatic brain injury.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Injuries' Specialised Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase Classic+Embase, ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, as well as trials registers, on 11 December 2019. We supplemented these searches with searches of four major Chinese databases on 19 September 2018. We also checked bibliographies, and contacted trial authors to identify additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of hypertonic saline versus other intracranial pressure-lowering agents for people with acute traumatic brain injury of any severity. We excluded cross-over trials as incompatible with assessing long-term outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened search results to identify potentially eligible trials and extracted data using a standard data extraction form. Outcome measures included: mortality at end of follow-up (all-cause); death or disability (as measured by the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS)); uncontrolled intracranial pressure (defined as failure to decrease the intracranial pressure to target and/or requiring additional intervention); and adverse events e.g. rebound phenomena; pulmonary oedema; acute renal failure during treatment).
MAIN RESULTS
Six trials, involving data from 287 people, met the inclusion criteria. The majority of participants (91%) had a diagnosis of severe traumatic brain injury. We had concerns about particular domains of risk of bias in each trial, as physicians were not reliably blinded to allocation, two trials contained participants with conditions other than traumatic brain injury and in one trial, we had concerns about missing data for important outcomes. The original protocol was available for only one trial and other trials (where registered) were registered retrospectively. Meta-analysis for both the primary outcome (mortality at final follow-up) and for 'poor outcome' as per conventionally dichotomised GOS criteria, was only possible for two trials. Synthesis of long-term outcomes was inhibited by the fact that two trials ceased data collection within two hours of a single bolus dose of an intracranial pressure-lowering agent and one at discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU). Only three trials collected data after participants were released from hospital, one of which did not report mortality and reported a 'poor outcome' by GOS criteria in an unconventional way. Substantial missing data in a key trial meant that in meta-analysis we report 'best-case' and 'worst-case' estimates alongside available case analysis. In no scenario did we discern a clear difference between treatments for either mortality or poor neurological outcome. Due to variation in modes of drug administration (including whether it followed or did not follow cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage, as well as different follow-up times and ways of reporting changes in intracranial pressure, as well as no uniform definition of 'uncontrolled intracranial pressure', we did not perform meta-analysis for this outcome and report results narratively, by individual trial. Trials tended to report both treatments to be effective in reducing elevated intracranial pressure but that hypertonic saline had increased benefits, usually adding that pretreatment factors need to be considered (e.g. serum sodium and both system and brain haemodynamics). No trial provided data for our other outcomes of interest. We consider evidence quality for all outcomes to be very low, as assessed by GRADE; we downgraded all conclusions due to imprecision (small sample size), indirectness (due to choice of measurement and/or selection of participants without traumatic brain injury), and in some cases, risk of bias and inconsistency. Only one of the included trials reported data on adverse effects; a rebound phenomenon, which was present only in the comparator group (mannitol). None of the trials reported data on pulmonary oedema or acute renal failure during treatment. On the whole, trial authors do not seem to have rigorously sought to collect data on adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review set out to find trials comparing hypertonic saline to a potential range of other intracranial pressure-lowering agents, but only identified trials comparing it with mannitol or mannitol in combination with glycerol. Based on limited data, there is weak evidence to suggest that hypertonic saline is no better than mannitol in efficacy and safety in the long-term management of acute traumatic brain injury. Future research should be comprised of large, multi-site trials, prospectively registered, reported in accordance with current best practice. Trials should investigate issues such as the type of traumatic brain injury suffered by participants and concentration of infusion and length of time over which the infusion is given.
Topics: Brain Injuries; Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Glasgow Outcome Scale; Humans; Intracranial Hypertension; Intracranial Pressure; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Saline Solution, Hypertonic
PubMed: 31978260
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010904.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2021Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis have changed the first-line treatment of people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Single or combined immune checkpoint inhibitors compared to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.
BACKGROUND
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis have changed the first-line treatment of people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Single-agent pembrolizumab (a PD-1 inhibitor) is currently the standard of care as monotherapy in patients with PD-L1 expression ≥ 50%, either alone or in combination with chemotherapy when PD-L1 expression is less than 50%. Atezolizumab (PD-L1 inhibitor) has also been approved in combination with chemotherapy and bevacizumab (an anti-angiogenic antibody) in first-line NSCLC regardless of PD-L1 expression. The combination of first-line PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors with anti-CTLA-4 antibodies has also been shown to improve survival compared to platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC, particularly in people with high tumour mutational burden (TMB). The association of ipilimumab (an anti CTLA4) and nivolumab (PD-1 inhibitor) has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in all patients with PD-L1 expression ≥1%. Although these antibodies are currently used in clinical practice, some questions remain unanswered, such as the best-treatment strategy, the role of different biomarkers for treatment selection and the effectiveness of immunotherapy according to specific clinical characteristics.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), as monotherapy or in combination, compared to platinum-based chemotherapy, with or without bevacizumab for people with advanced NSCLC, according to the level of PD-L1 expression.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed an electronic search of the main databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase) from inception until 31 December 2020 and conferences meetings from 2015 onwards.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on the efficacy or safety of first-line ICI treatment for adults with advanced NSCLC who had not previously received any anticancer treatment. We included trials comparing single- or double-ICI treatment to standard first-line therapy (platinum-based chemotherapy +/- bevacizumab). All data come from 'international multicentre studies involving adults, age 18 or over, with histologically-confirmed stage IV NSCLC.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently assessed the search results and a fourth review author resolved any disagreements. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS); secondary outcomes were overall objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST v 1.1, grade 3 to 5 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) (CTCAE v 5.0) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We performed meta-analyses where appropriate using the random-effects model for hazard ratios (HRs) or risk ratios (RRs), with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), and used the I² statistic to investigate heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS
Main results We identified 15 trials for inclusion, seven completed and eight ongoing trials. We obtained data for 5893 participants from seven trials comparing first-line single- (six trials) or double- (two trials) agent ICI with platinum-based chemotherapy, one trial comparing both first-line single- and double-agent ICsI with platinum-based chemotherapy. All trials were at low risk of selection and detection bias, some were classified at high risk of performance, attrition or other source of bias. The overall certainty of evidence according to GRADE ranged from moderate-to-low because of risk of bias, inconsistency, or imprecision. The majority of the included trials reported their outcomes by PD-L1 expressions, with PD-L1 ≥ 50 being considered the most clinically useful cut-off level for decision makers. Also, iIn order to avoid overlaps between various PDL-1 expressions we prioritised the review outcomes according to PD-L1 ≥ 50. Single-agent ICI In the PD-L1 expression ≥ 50% group single-agent ICI probably improved OS compared to platinum-based chemotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.76, 6 RCTs, 2111 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). In this group, single-agent ICI also may improve PFS (HR: 0.68, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.88, 5 RCTs, 1886 participants, low-certainty evidence) and ORR (risk ratio (RR):1.40, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.75, 4 RCTs, 1672 participants, low-certainty evidence). HRQoL data were available for only one study including only people with PD-L1 expression ≥ 50%, which suggested that single-agent ICI may improve HRQoL at 15 weeks compared to platinum-based chemotherapy (RR: 1.51, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.10, 1 RCT, 297 participants, low-certainty evidence). In the included studies, treatment-related AEs were not reported according to PD-L1 expression levels. Grade 3-4 AEs may be less frequent with single-agent ICI compared to platinum-based chemotherapy (RR: 0.41, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.50, I² = 62%, 5 RCTs, 3346 participants, low-certainty evidence). More information about efficacy of single-agent ICI compared to platinum-based chemotherapy according to the level of PD-L1 expression and to TMB status or specific clinical characteristics is available in the full text. Double-agent ICI Double-ICI treatment probably prolonged OS compared to platinum-based chemotherapy in people with PD-L1 expression ≥50% (HR: 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.89 2 RCTs, 612 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Trials did not report data on HRQoL, PFS and ORR according to PD-L1 groups. Treatment related AEs were not reported according to PD-L1 expression levels. The frequency of grade 3-4 AEs may not differ between double-ICI treatment and platinum-based chemotherapy (RR: 0.78, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.09, I² = 81%, 2 RCTs, 1869 participants, low-certainty evidence). More information about efficacy of double-agent ICI according to the level of PD-L1 expression and to TMB status is available in the full text.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Authors' conclusions The evidence in this review suggests that single-agent ICI in people with NSCLC and PD-L1 ≥50% probably leads to a higher overall survival rate and may lead to a higher progression-free survival and overall response rate when compared to platinum-based chemotherapy and may also lead to a lower rate of adverse events and higher HRQoL. Combined ICI in people with NSCLC and PD-L1 ≥50% also probably leads to a higher overall survival rate when compared to platinum-based chemotherapy, but its effect on progression-free survival, overall response rate and HRQoL is unknown due to a lack of data. The rate of adverse events may not differ between groups. This review used to be a living review. It is transitioned out of living mode because current research is exploring ICI in association with chemotherapy or other immunotherapeutic drugs versus ICI as single agent rather than platinum based chemotherapy.
Topics: Aged; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; B7-H1 Antigen; Bevacizumab; Bias; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Female; Humans; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Nivolumab; Platinum Compounds; Progression-Free Survival; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33930176
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013257.pub3 -
Cancers May 2023Quality pharmacological treatment can improve survival in many types of cancer. Drug repurposing offers advantages in comparison with traditional drug development... (Review)
Review
Quality pharmacological treatment can improve survival in many types of cancer. Drug repurposing offers advantages in comparison with traditional drug development procedures, reducing time and risk. This systematic review identified the most recent randomized controlled clinical trials that focus on drug repurposing in oncology. We found that only a few clinical trials were placebo-controlled or standard-of-care-alone-controlled. Metformin has been studied for potential use in various types of cancer, including prostate, lung, and pancreatic cancer. Other studies assessed the possible use of the antiparasitic agent mebendazole in colorectal cancer and of propranolol in multiple myeloma or, when combined with etodolac, in breast cancer. We were able to identify trials that study the potential use of known antineoplastics in other non-oncological conditions, such as imatinib for severe coronavirus disease in 2019 or a study protocol aiming to assess the possible repurposing of leuprolide for Alzheimer's disease. Major limitations of these clinical trials were the small sample size, the high clinical heterogeneity of the participants regarding the stage of the neoplastic disease, and the lack of accounting for multimorbidity and other baseline clinical characteristics. Drug repurposing possibilities in oncology must be carefully examined with well-designed trials, considering factors that could influence prognosis.
PubMed: 37296934
DOI: 10.3390/cancers15112972 -
Lung Cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) Aug 2019This network meta-analysis (NMA), based on 12 phase-III studies with 9,236 metastatic NSCLC patients, aims to compare the efficacy of treatments including at least one... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Immune checkpoint inhibitors, alone or in combination with chemotherapy, as first-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
This network meta-analysis (NMA), based on 12 phase-III studies with 9,236 metastatic NSCLC patients, aims to compare the efficacy of treatments including at least one immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) with or without chemotherapy, as frontline therapy for advanced NSCLC patients. The NMA includes direct randomized evidence on treatments of interest along with indirect evidence from randomized studies with chemotherapy as the common comparator. Studies were identified by searching PubMed, and the abstracts of most recent main oncology congresses. The primary endpoint, Hazard-Ratio (HR) of Progression-free Survival (PFS), was estimated by a frequentist-approach NMA. Results are presented in the overall cohort (all-comers or PD-L1-positive) irrespective of histology, and by histology, PD-L1 expression level and sex. According to the primary PFS-NMA in the overall cohort, the combination of chemotherapy, first with pembrolizumab, second with atezolizumab exhibit significantly higher benefit than any other treatment examined. This superior PFS benefit is found for both squamous and non-squamous patients. Similarly for OS, the combination of pembrolizumab/chemotherapy, and atezolizumab/bevacizumab/chemotherapy-(ABC), followed by pembrolizumab-monotherapy and atezolizumab/chemotherapy, are the best treatments in the overall cohort, driven by the non-squamous histology. In the PD-L1-high patients again the combination of chemotherapy with atezolizumab or pembrolizumab, exhibit significant PFS benefit, followed by pembrolizumab-monotherapy. PFS benefit of these ICI/chemotherapy combinations are also found in PD-L1-negative and PD-L1-intermediate patients(1%≤PD-L1 < 50%). Of note, ABC is evaluated only for OS in non-squamous patients while the pembrolizumab-monotherapy PFS benefit and the atezolizumab/chemotherapy OS benefit are probably under-estimated since most of the data stems from non-significant interim analyses of ongoing studies [KN042;IM131/132/150]. In conclusion, the addition of chemotherapy to ICIs enhanced their treatment efficacy as first-line treatment for advanced NSCLC patients. The combination of chemotherapy with either pembrolizumab or atezolizumab show consistently higher efficacy than chemotherapy-alone or any other ICI-combination or monotherapy, particularly in non-squamous patients.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; B7-H1 Antigen; Biomarkers, Tumor; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Female; Gene Expression; Humans; Liver Neoplasms; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Mutation; Neoplasm Metastasis; Neoplasm Staging; Prognosis
PubMed: 31319971
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2019.05.029