-
Neurological Sciences : Official... Oct 2023The study aims to increase understanding of edaravone's efficacy and safety as an amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) treatment and provide significant insights... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
The study aims to increase understanding of edaravone's efficacy and safety as an amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) treatment and provide significant insights regarding this field's future research.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive search of the Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus databases for randomized controlled trials and observational studies up until September 2022. We evaluated the studies' quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the National Institutes of Health tool.
RESULTS
We included 11 studies with 2845 ALS patients. We found that edaravone improved the survival rate at 18, 24, and 30 months (risk ratio (RR) = 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.02 to 1.24], P = 0.02), (RR = 1.22, 95% CI [1.06 to 1.41], P = 0.007), and (RR = 1.17, 95% CI [1.01 to 1.34], P = 0.03), respectively. However, the administration of edaravone did not result in any significant difference in adverse effects or efficacy outcomes between the two groups, as indicated by a P value greater than 0.05.
CONCLUSION
Edaravone improves survival rates of ALS patients at 18, 24, and 30 months with no adverse effects. However, edaravone does not affect functional outcomes. In order to ensure the validity of our findings and assess the results in accordance with the disease stage, it is essential to carry out additional prospective, rigorous, and high-quality clinical trials. The current study offers preliminary indications regarding the effectiveness and safety of edaravone. However, further comprehensive research is required to establish the generalizability and sustainability of the findings.
Topics: United States; Humans; Edaravone; Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 37249667
DOI: 10.1007/s10072-023-06869-8 -
Dermatology (Basel, Switzerland) 2021Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a widely acquired, relapsing inflammatory skin disease. Biologics are now widely used in patients with moderate-to-severe AD.
BACKGROUND
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a widely acquired, relapsing inflammatory skin disease. Biologics are now widely used in patients with moderate-to-severe AD.
OBJECTIVE
This work aims to summarize both label and off-label biologics on AD treatment in phase II and phase III stages, and compile evidence on the efficacy of the most-studied biologics.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive literature search through PubMed, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify all documented biological therapies for AD. The criteria were further refined to focus on those treatments with the highest evidence level for AD with at least one randomized clinical trial supporting their use. Only studies or articles published in English were enrolled in this study.
FINDINGS
Primary searches identified 525 relevant articles and 27 trials. Duplicated articles and papers without a full text were excluded. Only completed trials were enrolled. We included 28 randomized controlled trials, 4 unpublished trials, 2 observational studies, and 1 meta-analysis. Eight kinds of biologics, including IL-4/IL-13 inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, anti-IL-13 antibodies, anti-IL-22 antibodies, anti-IL-33 antibodies, thymic stromal lymphopoietin inhibitor (TSLP), OX40 antibodies, and H4R-antagonists were included in this work. Dupliumab, as the most widely used and investigated biologic, was reported in 1 meta-analysis and 4 trials exploring its long-term use and application in both adults and pediatric patients. Besides dupilumab, four other IL-4/IL-13 inhibitors recruited were all randomized, clinical trials at phase 2-3 stage. Six different kinds of JAK inhibitors were summarized with strong evidence revealing their significant therapeutic effects on AD. There were 3 trials for nemolizumab, an anti-IL-13 antibody, all of which were in the phase 2 clinical trial stage. Results showed nemolizumab could be another alternative therapy for moderate-to-severe AD with long-term efficiency and safety.
CONCLUSION
The biological therapies with the most robust evidence on efficacy and long-term safety for AD treatment include dupilumab, barcitinib, abrocitinib, and delgocitinib. Most of the biologics mentioned in this review were still at the exploratory stage. This review will help practitioners advise patients seeking suitable biological therapies and offer experimental study directions for treatment.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Azetidines; Biological Products; Carbamates; Clinical Trials as Topic; Dermatitis, Atopic; Dermatologic Agents; Heterocyclic Compounds, 3-Ring; Humans; Nitriles; Piperidines; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Purines; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines; Pyrroles; Sulfonamides
PubMed: 33735876
DOI: 10.1159/000514535 -
BMC Neurology Jun 2023Many drugs are prescribed in relieving acute migraine attacks, we aim to compare metoclopramide with other antimigraine drugs. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The efficacy and safety of metoclopramide in relieving acute migraine attacks compared with other anti-migraine drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Many drugs are prescribed in relieving acute migraine attacks, we aim to compare metoclopramide with other antimigraine drugs.
METHODS
We searched online databases like PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science till June 2022 for RCTs that compared metoclopramide alone with placebo or active drugs. The main outcomes were the mean change in headache score and complete headache relief. The secondary outcomes were the rescue medications need, side effects, nausea and recurrence rate. We qualitatively reviewed the outcomes. Then, we performed the network meta-analyses (NMAs) when it was possible. which were done by the Frequentist method using the MetaInsight online software.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies were included with a total of 1934 patients: 826 received metoclopramide, 302 received placebo, and 806 received other active drugs. Metoclopramide was effective in reducing headache outcomes even for 24 h. The intravenous route was the most chosen route in the included studies and showed significant positive results regarding headache outcomes; however, the best route whether intramuscular, intravenous, or suppository was not compared in the previous studies. Also, both 10 and 20 mg doses of metoclopramide were effective in improving headache outcomes; however, there was no direct comparison between both doses and the 10 mg dose was the most frequently used dosage. In NMA of headache change after 30 min or 1 h, metoclopramide effect came after granisetron, ketorolac, chlorpromazine, and Dexketoprofen trometamol. Only granisetron's effect was significantly higher than metoclopramide's effect which was only significantly higher than placebo and sumatriptan. In headache-free symptoms, only prochlorperazine was non-significantly higher than metoclopramide which was higher than other medications and showed significantly higher effects only with placebo. In rescue medication, metoclopramide's effect was only non-significantly lower than prochlorperazine and chlorpromazine while its effect was higher than other drugs and showed higher significant effects only than placebo and valproate. In the recurrence rate, studies showed no significant difference between metoclopramide and other drugs. Metoclopramide significantly decreased nausea more than the placebo. Regarding side effects, metoclopramide showed a lower incidence of mild side effects than pethidine and chlorpromazine and showed a higher incidence of mild side effects than placebo, dexamethasone, and ketorolac. The reported extrapyramidal symptoms with metoclopramide were dystonia or akathisia.
CONCLUSION
A dose of 10 mg IV Metoclopramide was effective in relieving migraine attacks with minimal side effects. Compared to other active drugs, it only showed a lower significant effect compared with granisetron regarding headache change while it showed significantly higher effects only with placebo in both rescue medication needs and headache-free symptoms and valproate in only rescue medication need. Also, it significantly decreased headache scores more than placebo and sumatriptan. However, more studies are needed to support our results.
Topics: Humans; Metoclopramide; Sumatriptan; Network Meta-Analysis; Prochlorperazine; Chlorpromazine; Granisetron; Valproic Acid; Ketorolac; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Migraine Disorders; Nausea; Headache
PubMed: 37291500
DOI: 10.1186/s12883-023-03259-7 -
Journal For Immunotherapy of Cancer Jan 2024Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment has become an important therapeutic option for various cancer types. Although the treatment is effective, ICI can...
Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment has become an important therapeutic option for various cancer types. Although the treatment is effective, ICI can overstimulate the patient's immune system, leading to potentially severe immune-related adverse events (irAEs), including hepatitis, colitis, pneumonitis and myocarditis. The initial mainstay of treatments includes the administration of corticosteroids. There is little evidence how to treat steroid-resistant (sr) irAEs. It is mainly based on small case series or single case reports. This systematic review summarizes available evidence about sr-irAEs. We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed. Additionally, we included European Society for Medical Oncology, Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, National Comprehensive Cancer Network and American Society of Clinical Oncology Guidelines for irAEs in our assessment. The study population of all selected publications had to include patients with cancer who developed hepatitis, colitis, pneumonitis or myocarditis during or after an immunotherapy treatment and for whom corticosteroid therapy was not sufficient. Our literature search was not restricted to any specific cancer diagnosis. Case reports were also included. There is limited data regarding life-threatening sr-irAEs of colon/liver/lung/heart and the majority of publications are single case reports. Most publications investigated sr colitis (n=26), followed by hepatitis (n=21), pneumonitis (n=17) and myocarditis (n=15). There is most data for mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) to treat sr hepatitis and for infliximab, followed by vedolizumab, to treat sr colitis. Regarding sr pneumonitis there is most data for MMF and intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) while data regarding infliximab are conflicting. In sr myocarditis, most evidence is available for the use of abatacept or anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) (both with or without MMF) or ruxolitinib with abatacept. This review highlights the need for prompt recognition and treatment of sr hepatitis, colitis, pneumonitis and myocarditis. Guideline recommendations for sr situations are not defined precisely. Based on our search, we recommend-as first line treatment-(1) MMF for sr hepatitis, (2) infliximab for sr colitis, followed by vedolizumab, (3) MMF and IVIG for sr pneumonitis and (4) abatacept or ATG (both with or without MMF) or ruxolitinib with abatacept for sr myocarditis. These additional immunosuppressive agents should be initiated promptly if there is no sufficient response to corticosteroids within 3 days.
Topics: Humans; Abatacept; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Colitis; Hepatitis; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Infliximab; Mycophenolic Acid; Myocarditis; Neoplasms; Nitriles; Pneumonia; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines
PubMed: 38233099
DOI: 10.1136/jitc-2023-007409 -
Clinical Therapeutics Dec 2022The management of acute stroke is challenging. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy and tolerability of edaravone, with or without... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
The management of acute stroke is challenging. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy and tolerability of edaravone, with or without thrombolytic therapy, in the treatment of patients with acute ischemic stroke.
METHODS
The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. Mean differences (MD), risk ratios (RR), 95% confidence interval (CI), and heterogeneity were calculated.
FINDINGS
Totals of nine RCTs and four cohort studies were included, for a total of 2102 patients. In patients with acute ischemic stroke, edaravone monotherapy was associated with significantly improved Barthel Index of functioning in activities for daily living (MD, 23.95; 95% CI, 18.48 to 29.41; P < 0.001) and neurologic deficit, (as measured using the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score) (MD = -3.49; 95% CI, -5.76 to 1.22; P = 0.003), on short-term follow-up. However, edaravone was not associated with an improved rate of death or disability (RR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.45 to 1.23; P = 0.25) on long-term follow-up.When plus to thrombolytic therapy, edaravone was associated with significant improvements in recanalization rate (RR = 1.71; 95% CI, 1.05 to 2.77; P = 0.03) and neurologic deficit (MD = 3.97; 95% CI, 5.14 to 2.79; P < 0.001), without an increase in the prevalence of bleeding events (RR = 1.11; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.62; P = 0.59). However, edaravone did not have a significant effect on death or disability (RR = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.04; P = 0.12).
IMPLICATIONS
Based on the findings from the present meta-analysis, edaravone was an effective and well-tolerated neuroprotective agent in these patients with ischemic stroke. With the use of edaravone, activities of daily living and neurologic deficits, along with recanalization rates, were improved on short-term follow-up, but the long-term effects still need confirmation in larger-scale clinical trials.
Topics: Humans; Edaravone; Stroke; Ischemic Stroke; Neuroprotective Agents; Hemorrhage
PubMed: 36473732
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2022.11.005 -
Journal of Endocrinological... May 2023There are efficacy and safety concerns related to teneligliptin treatment. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was undertaken to comprehensively... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIM
There are efficacy and safety concerns related to teneligliptin treatment. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was undertaken to comprehensively profile the efficacy and safety of teneligliptin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).
METHODS
Thirteen studies were chosen from a search of scientific databases for RCTs using teneligliptin as a monotherapy or as an adjunct to other glycemic agents with pre-specified inclusion criteria. We calculated weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in each included trial and pooled the data using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies enrolled 2853 patients were identified. Teneligliptin treatment was associated with weight gain (vs. placebo, weighted mean difference (WMD) 0.28 kg; 95% CI - 0.20-0.77 kg; I = 86%; P = 0.25). Compared to monotherapy, add on therapy with teneligliptin showed significant improvement in FPG mg/dl levels (WMD - 16.75 mg/dl; 95% CI - 19.38 to - 14.13 mg/dl), HOMA-β (WMD 7.91; 95% CI 5.38-10.45) and HOMA-IR (WMD - 0.27; 95% CI - 0.46 to - 0.07). The improvement in HbA1c was greater with monotherapy (WMD - 8.88 mmol/mol; 95% CI - 9.59 to - 8.08 mmol/mol). There was no significant risk of any hypoglycemia with teneligliptin compared to placebo (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.44-1.60; I = 0%; P = 0.60). However, the risk was 1.84 times high when combined with other glycemic agents. The risk of cardiovascular events was comparable, regardless of treatment duration when compared to placebo or any other active comparator (OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.40-1.57; I = 0%; P = 0.50). [PROSPERO, CRD42022360785].
CONCLUSIONS
Teneligliptin is an effective and safe therapeutic option for patients with T2DM, both as monotherapy and as add-on therapy. However, additional large-scale, high-quality, long-term follow-up clinical trials with diverse ethnic populations are required to confirm its long-term efficacy and safety.
Topics: Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Blood Glucose; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Pyrazoles
PubMed: 36624224
DOI: 10.1007/s40618-023-02003-9 -
Daru : Journal of Faculty of Pharmacy,... Dec 2022Since the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved ibrutinib to treat patients with refractory/relapsed mantle cell lymphoma (R/R MCL), it is used in clinical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Since the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved ibrutinib to treat patients with refractory/relapsed mantle cell lymphoma (R/R MCL), it is used in clinical trials, whether as a single agent or in combination with other chemotherapy agents. The efficacy and safety of ibrutinib administration alone or in combinations have not been studied systematically. This study systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of ibrutinib-containing regimens for the treatment of patients with MCL.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
We performed a systematic search in PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus. Then, a team of independent reviewers selected relevant studies and extracted the data.
RESULTS
From a total of 1,436 studies, 12 trials were eligible. The overall response rates (ORRs) of patients with R/R MCL receiving single-agent ibrutinib ranged between 62.7% to 93.8%, and the ORRs of ibrutinib combinations ranged from 74 to 88%. In patients with newly diagnosed MCL receiving ibrutinib and rituximab, ORR ranged from 84 to 100%. The highest progression-free survival (PFS) was reported in patients receiving ibrutinib and rituximab (43 months). The meta-analysis performed on adverse events (AEs) demonstrated that single-agent ibrutinib had a high risk of bleeding, nausea, and diarrhea.
CONCLUSION
Single-agent ibrutinib showed acceptable efficacy and safety in the treatment of patients with MCL. Moreover, combining ibrutinib with other agents such as rituximab, venetoclax, and ublituximab can increase its efficacy and reduce chemotherapy-induced resistance in most cases; however, in the case of combination therapy, patients need to be monitored more strictly in terms of AEs. In our review, the ibrutinib and rituximab combination showed promising results in patients with R/R MCL. Also, this combination showed favorable efficacy and safety in patients with newly diagnosed untreated MCL, making it a great candidate to be studied more in large and well-designed trials.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Lymphoma, Mantle-Cell; Rituximab; Pyrimidines; Pyrazoles
PubMed: 36057010
DOI: 10.1007/s40199-022-00444-w -
Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery Aug 2022Ischemic stroke is a major cause of death and disability. Despite major advances in reperfusion therapies, most patients don´t benefit from these treatments as the time... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Ischemic stroke is a major cause of death and disability. Despite major advances in reperfusion therapies, most patients don´t benefit from these treatments as the time window for such interventions is limited. Therefore, other treatment options are desirable. Edaravone has been demonstrated in previous studies to reduce neurologic deficits in stroke patients.
OBJECTIVE
To test the hypothesis that edaravone reduces functional dependence in ischemic stroke patients.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing edaravone to placebo in adult patients with ischemic stroke. The efficacy outcomes of interest were good and excellent functional outcomes at 90 days, defined as modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores of 0-2 and 0-1 respectively. The safety outcomes of interest were intracranial hemorrhage and mortality.
RESULTS
19 studies were included. Edaravone treatment was associated with improved chances of 90-day good (OR=1.31, 95% CI 1.06-1.67) and excellent (OR=1.26, 95% CI 1.04-1.54) functional outcomes. Mortality was also lower in edaravone treated patients (OR=0.50, 95% CI 0.45-0.56). There were no differences in terms of intracranial hemorrhage. Most studies were observational and performed in Asian populations, especially Japan. Heterogeneity was high for all outcomes but reduced when analysis was restricted to randomized trials.
CONCLUSION
Edaravone is a promising treatment for ischemic stroke patients, with a more favorable time window. However, more randomized studies including patient populations outside Asia are required to confirm this hypothesis.
Topics: Adult; Antipyrine; Brain Ischemia; Edaravone; Free Radical Scavengers; Humans; Intracranial Hemorrhages; Ischemic Stroke; Stroke; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35753163
DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2022.107299 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021This is the third update of this review, first published in July 2009. All major guidelines on treatment of hypertension recommend weight loss; anti-obesity drugs may be... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This is the third update of this review, first published in July 2009. All major guidelines on treatment of hypertension recommend weight loss; anti-obesity drugs may be able to help in this respect.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objectives: To assess the long-term effects of pharmacologically-induced reduction in body weight in adults with essential hypertension on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, and adverse events (including total serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, and total non-serious adverse events).. Secondary objectives: To assess the long-term effects of pharmacologically-induced reduction in body weight in adults with essential hypertension on change from baseline in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and on body weight reduction.
SEARCH METHODS
For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to March 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The searches had no language restrictions. We contacted authors of relevant papers about further published and unpublished work.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of at least 24 weeks' duration in adults with hypertension that compared approved long-term weight-loss medications to placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risks of bias, and extracted data. Where appropriate and in the absence of significant heterogeneity between studies (P > 0.1), we pooled studies using a fixed-effect meta-analysis. When heterogeneity was present, we used the random-effects method and investigated the cause of the heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS
This third update of the review added one new trial, investigating the combination of naltrexone/bupropion versus placebo. Two medications, which were included in the previous versions of this review (rimonabant and sibutramine) are no longer considered relevant for this update, since their marketing approval was withdrawn in 2010 and 2009, respectively. The number of included studies in this review update is therefore six (12,724 participants in total): four RCTs comparing orlistat to placebo, involving a total of 3132 participants with high blood pressure and a mean age of 46 to 55 years; one trial comparing phentermine/topiramate to placebo, involving 1305 participants with high blood pressure and a mean age of 53 years; and one trial comparing naltrexone/bupropion to placebo, involving 8283 participants with hypertension and a mean age of 62 years. We judged the risks of bias to be unclear for the trials investigating orlistat or naltrexone/bupropion. and low for the trial investigating phentermine/topiramate. Only the study of naltrexone/bupropion included cardiovascular mortality and morbidity as predefined outcomes. There were no differences in the rates of all-cause or cardiovascular mortality, major cardiovascular events, or serious adverse events between naltrexone/bupropion and placebo. The incidence of overall adverse events was significantly higher in participants treated with naltrexone/bupropion. For orlistat, the incidence of gastrointestinal side effects was consistently higher compared to placebo. The most frequent side effects with phentermine/topiramate were dry mouth and paraesthesia. After six to 12 months, orlistat reduced systolic blood pressure compared to placebo by mean difference (MD) -2.6 mm Hg (95% confidence interval (CI) -3.8 to -1.4 mm Hg; 4 trials, 2058 participants) and diastolic blood pressure by MD -2.0 mm Hg (95% CI -2.7 to -1.2 mm Hg; 4 trials, 2058 participants). After 13 months of follow-up, phentermine/topiramate decreased systolic blood pressure compared to placebo by -2.0 to -4.2 mm Hg (1 trial, 1030 participants) (depending on drug dosage), and diastolic blood pressure by -1.3 to -1.9 mm Hg (1 trial, 1030 participants) (depending on drug dosage). There was no difference in the change in systolic or diastolic blood pressure between naltrexone/bupropion and placebo (1 trial, 8283 participants). We identified no relevant studies investigating liraglutide or lorcaserin in people with hypertension.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In people with elevated blood pressure, orlistat, phentermine/topiramate and naltrexone/bupropion reduced body weight; the magnitude of the effect was greatest with phentermine/topiramate. In the same trials, orlistat and phentermine/topiramate, but not naltrexone/bupropion, reduced blood pressure. One RCT of naltrexone/bupropion versus placebo showed no differences in all-cause mortality or cardiovascular mortality or morbidity after two years. The European Medicines Agency refused marketing authorisation for phentermine/topiramate due to safety concerns, while for lorcaserin the application for European marketing authorisation was withdrawn due to a negative overall benefit/risk balance. In 2020 lorcaserin was also withdrawn from the US market. Two other medications (rimonabant and sibutramine) had already been withdrawn from the market in 2009 and 2010, respectively.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Obesity Agents; Appetite Depressants; Bias; Blood Pressure; Body Weight; Bupropion; Diet, Reducing; Drug Combinations; Female; Fructose; Humans; Hypertension; Lactones; Male; Middle Aged; Naltrexone; Orlistat; Phentermine; Piperidines; Pyrazoles; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Safety-Based Drug Withdrawals; Time; Topiramate
PubMed: 33454957
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007654.pub5 -
Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and... Dec 2023Cancer cachexia (CC) is a multifactorial syndrome driven by inflammation, defined by ongoing loss of skeletal muscle mass (with or without loss of fat mass) that cannot... (Review)
Review
Cancer cachexia (CC) is a multifactorial syndrome driven by inflammation, defined by ongoing loss of skeletal muscle mass (with or without loss of fat mass) that cannot be fully reversed by conventional nutritional support. CC leads to progressive functional impairment, with its clinical management complicated and limited therapeutic options available. The objective of this review was to assess the efficacy and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on patient-centred outcomes in patients with CC. In 2013, two systematic reviews concluded that there was insufficient evidence to recommend NSAIDs for clinical management of CC outside of clinical trials. However, clinical trials of multi-component CC interventions have included NSAIDs as an intervention component, so an up-to-date assessment of the evidence for NSAIDs in the treatment of CC is warranted. Four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and CINAHL) and three trial registers (clinicaltrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and ISRCTN) were searched on 16 December 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any NSAID (any dose or duration) with a control arm, in adult patients with CC, reporting measures of body weight, body composition, nutrition impact symptoms, inflammation, physical function or fatigue, were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes (determined with patient involvement) were survival, changes in muscle strength, body composition, body weight and quality of life. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. Five studies were included, which investigated Indomethacin (n = 1), Ibuprofen (n = 1) and Celecoxib (n = 3). Four studies were judged to be at high risk of bias for all outcomes, with one study raising concerns for most outcomes. Considerable clinical and methodological heterogeneity amongst the studies meant that meta-analysis was not appropriate. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether Indomethacin or Ibuprofen is effective or safe for use in patients with CC; RCTs with lower risk of bias are needed. Celecoxib studies indicated it was safe for use in this population at the doses tested (200-400 mg/day) but found contrasting results regarding efficacy, potentially reflecting heterogeneity amongst the studies. There is inadequate evidence to recommend any NSAID for CC. While current clinical trials for CC treatments are shifting towards multi-component interventions, further research to determine the efficacy and safety of NSAIDs alone is necessary if they are to be included in such multi-component interventions. Furthermore, the lack of data on patient-determined primary outcomes in this review highlights the need for patient involvement in clinical trials for CC.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Ibuprofen; Celecoxib; Cachexia; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Indomethacin; Inflammation; Neoplasms
PubMed: 37750475
DOI: 10.1002/jcsm.13327