-
Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy Jul 2023Metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer (mCPRC) remains an aggressive form of prostate cancer that no longer responds to traditional hormonal treatment alone.... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer (mCPRC) remains an aggressive form of prostate cancer that no longer responds to traditional hormonal treatment alone. Despite the advent of novel anti-androgen medications, many patients continue to progress, and as a result, there is a growing need for additional treatment options.
AREAS COVERED
Lutetium-177 (Lu) - PSMA-617 has become one of the new frontline treatment options for refractory metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer after the failure of novel anti-androgen therapy and chemotherapy. Lu-177 has been used in real-world prospective trials and is now becoming utilized in newer phase III clinical trials. Here, we present a comprehensive overview of the current literature, covering retrospective studies, prospective studies, and clinical trials that established Lutetium-177-PSMA-617 (Lu-PSMA-617) for the treatment of mCRPC.
EXPERT OPINION
Lu - PSMA-617 has been approved for treatment of mCRPC based on positive phase III studies. While this treatment is tolerable and effective, biomarkers are necessary to determine which patients will benefit. In the future, radioligand treatments will likely be utilized in earlier lines of therapy and potentially in combination with other prostate cancer treatments.
Topics: Male; Humans; Prospective Studies; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant; Retrospective Studies; Radioisotopes; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37194261
DOI: 10.1080/14737140.2023.2213892 -
Pharmacological Reviews Apr 2021The complement system was discovered at the end of the 19th century as a heat-labile plasma component that "complemented" the antibodies in killing microbes, hence the...
The complement system was discovered at the end of the 19th century as a heat-labile plasma component that "complemented" the antibodies in killing microbes, hence the name "complement." Complement is also part of the innate immune system, protecting the host by recognition of pathogen-associated molecular patterns. However, complement is multifunctional far beyond infectious defense. It contributes to organ development, such as sculpting neuron synapses, promoting tissue regeneration and repair, and rapidly engaging and synergizing with a number of processes, including hemostasis leading to thromboinflammation. Complement is a double-edged sword. Although it usually protects the host, it may cause tissue damage when dysregulated or overactivated, such as in the systemic inflammatory reaction seen in trauma and sepsis and severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Damage-associated molecular patterns generated during ischemia-reperfusion injuries (myocardial infarction, stroke, and transplant dysfunction) and in chronic neurologic and rheumatic disease activate complement, thereby increasing damaging inflammation. Despite the long list of diseases with potential for ameliorating complement modulation, only a few rare diseases are approved for clinical treatment targeting complement. Those currently being efficiently treated include paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, atypical hemolytic-uremic syndrome, myasthenia gravis, and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders. Rare diseases, unfortunately, preclude robust clinical trials. The increasing evidence for complement as a pathogenetic driver in many more common diseases suggests an opportunity for future complement therapy, which, however, requires robust clinical trials; one ongoing example is COVID-19 disease. The current review aims to discuss complement in disease pathogenesis and discuss future pharmacological strategies to treat these diseases with complement-targeted therapies. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: The complement system is the host's defense friend by protecting it from invading pathogens, promoting tissue repair, and maintaining homeostasis. Complement is a double-edged sword, since when dysregulated or overactivated it becomes the host's enemy, leading to tissue damage, organ failure, and, in worst case, death. A number of acute and chronic diseases are candidates for pharmacological treatment to avoid complement-dependent damage, ranging from the well established treatment for rare diseases to possible future treatment of large patient groups like the pandemic coronavirus disease 2019.
Topics: COVID-19; Collectins; Complement Activating Enzymes; Complement C3; Complement Inactivating Agents; Complement System Proteins; Genetic Therapy; Humans; Inflammation Mediators; Lectins; Mannose-Binding Protein-Associated Serine Proteases; Pandemics; Rare Diseases; SARS-CoV-2; Synapses; Ficolins
PubMed: 33687995
DOI: 10.1124/pharmrev.120.000072 -
Stroke May 2023Prior systematic reviews have compared the efficacy of intravenous tenecteplase and alteplase in acute ischemic stroke, assigning their relative complications as a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Prior systematic reviews have compared the efficacy of intravenous tenecteplase and alteplase in acute ischemic stroke, assigning their relative complications as a secondary objective. The objective of the present study is to determine whether the risk of treatment complications differs between patients treated with either agent.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review including interventional studies and prospective and retrospective, observational studies enrolling adult patients treated with intravenous tenecteplase for ischemic stroke (both comparative and noncomparative with alteplase). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and the www.
CLINICALTRIALS
gov registry from inception through June 3, 2022. The primary outcome was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and secondary outcomes included any intracranial hemorrhage, angioedema, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, other extracranial hemorrhage, and mortality. We performed random effects meta-analyses where appropriate. Evidence was synthesized as relative risks, comparing risks in patients exposed to tenecteplase versus alteplase and absolute risks in patients treated with tenecteplase.
RESULTS
Of 2226 records identified, 25 full-text articles (reporting 26 studies of 7913 patients) were included. Sixteen studies included alteplase as a comparator, and 10 were noncomparative. The relative risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage in patients treated with tenecteplase compared with alteplase in the 16 comparative studies was 0.89 ([95% CI, 0.65-1.23]; I=0%). Among patients treated with low dose (<0.2 mg/kg; 4 studies), medium dose (0.2-0.39 mg/kg; 13 studies), and high dose (≥0.4 mg/kg; 3 studies) tenecteplase, the RRs of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage were 0.78 ([95% CI, 0.22-2.82]; I=0%), 0.77 ([95% CI, 0.53-1.14]; I=0%), and 2.31 ([95% CI, 0.69-7.75]; I=40%), respectively. The pooled risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage in tenecteplase-treated patients, including comparative and noncomparative studies, was 0.99% ([95% CI, 0%-3.49%]; I=0%, 7 studies), 1.69% ([95% CI, 1.14%-2.32%]; I=1%, 23 studies), and 4.19% ([95% CI, 1.92%-7.11%]; I=52%, 5 studies) within the low-, medium-, and high-dose groups. The risks of any intracranial hemorrhage, mortality, and other studied outcomes were comparable between the 2 agents.
CONCLUSIONS
Across medium- and low-dose tiers, the risks of complications were generally comparable between those treated with tenecteplase versus alteplase for acute ischemic stroke.
Topics: Humans; Tissue Plasminogen Activator; Tenecteplase; Fibrinolytic Agents; Ischemic Stroke; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Stroke; Intracranial Hemorrhages; Treatment Outcome; Brain Ischemia
PubMed: 36951049
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.122.042335 -
American Journal of Men's Health 2022This meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of holmium laser enucleation of prostate (HoLEP) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of holmium laser enucleation of prostate (HoLEP) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with large volume. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases (until March 2022) were used to search related randomized controlled trials. A total of 11 studies including 1,258 patients were involved. HoLEP could significantly decrease the length of hospital stay and accelerate recovery. In subanalysis, HoLEP had better perioperative outcomes than bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (B-TURP) and bipolar transurethral enucleation of the prostate (BPEP). The improvement in operative time and enucleation time was better in thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) than HoLEP. In the follow-up period, the HoLEP decreased post-void residual urine (PVR) in short-term intervals and improved patients' maximum flow rate (Qmax) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in mid- and long-term intervals. In subanalysis, HoLEP presented significant improvements in Qmax, PSA, and quality of life (QoL) than B-TURP, and HoLEP could also improve Qmax than ThuLEP after 6 months of surgery. The HoLEP reduced the risk of postoperative bleeding compared with other surgeries in safety. In our study, we confirmed the advantages of HoLEP in treating BPH when the prostate size was larger than 80 mL, which indicated that HoLEP could be the best choice for treatment of large volume of prostate.
Topics: Humans; Lasers, Solid-State; Male; Prostate; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Quality of Life; Transurethral Resection of Prostate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35864746
DOI: 10.1177/15579883221113203 -
Journal of the American College of... Jun 2021Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have shown a positive benefit-risk balance in both clinical trials and real-world data, but approximately 2% to 3.5% of patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have shown a positive benefit-risk balance in both clinical trials and real-world data, but approximately 2% to 3.5% of patients experience major bleeding annually. Many of these patients require hospitalization, and the administration of reversal agents may be required to control bleeding.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to investigate clinical outcomes associated with the use of 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrates, idarucizumab, or andexanet for reversal of severe DOAC-associated bleeding.
METHODS
The investigators systematically searched for studies of reversal agents for the treatment of severe bleeding associated with DOAC. Mortality rates, thromboembolic events, and hemostatic efficacy were meta-analyzed using a random effects model.
RESULTS
The investigators evaluated 60 studies in 4,735 patients with severe DOAC-related bleeding who were treated with 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrates (n = 2,688), idarucizumab (n = 1,111), or andexanet (n = 936). The mortality rate was 17.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15.1% to 20.4%), and it was higher in patients with intracranial bleedings (20.2%) than in patients with extracranial hemorrhages (15.4%). The thromboembolism rate was 4.6% (95% CI: 3.3% to 6.0%), being particularly high with andexanet (10.7%; 95% CI: 6.5% to 15.7%). The effective hemostasis rate was 78.5% (95% CI: 75.1% to 81.8%) and was similar regardless of the reversal agent considered. The rebleeding rate was 13.2% (95% CI: 5.5% to 23.1%) and 78% of rebleeds occurred after resumption of anticoagulation. The risk of death was markedly and significantly associated with failure to achieve effective hemostasis (relative risk: 3.63; 95% CI: 2.56 to 5.16). The results were robust regardless of the type of study or the hemostatic scale used.
CONCLUSIONS
The risk of death after severe DOAC-related bleeding remains significant despite a high rate of effective hemostasis with reversal agents. Failure to achieve effective hemostasis strongly correlated with a fatal outcome. Thromboembolism rates are particularly high with andexanet. Comparative clinical trials are needed.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Anticoagulants; Blood Coagulation; Blood Coagulation Factors; Factor Xa; Hemorrhage; Hemostasis; Humans; Recombinant Proteins; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34140101
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.04.061 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Despite the availability of effective drug therapies that reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol (LDL-C), cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains an important... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Despite the availability of effective drug therapies that reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol (LDL-C), cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains an important cause of mortality and morbidity. Therefore, additional LDL-C reduction may be warranted, especially for people who are unresponsive to, or unable to take, existing LDL-C-reducing therapies. By inhibiting the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) enzyme, monoclonal antibodies (PCSK9 inhibitors) reduce LDL-C and CVD risk.
OBJECTIVES
Primary To quantify the effects of PCSK9 inhibitors on CVD, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke, compared to placebo or active treatment(s) for primary and secondary prevention. Secondary To quantify the safety of PCSK9 inhibitors, with specific focus on the incidence of influenza, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and cancer, compared to placebo or active treatment(s) for primary and secondary prevention.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified studies by systematically searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science in December 2019. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in August 2020 and screened the reference lists of included studies. This is an update of the review first published in 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All parallel-group and factorial randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up of at least 24 weeks were eligible.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently reviewed and extracted data. Where data were available, we calculated pooled effect estimates. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence and in 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 24 studies with data on 60,997 participants. Eighteen trials randomised participants to alirocumab and six to evolocumab. All participants received background lipid-lowering treatment or lifestyle counselling. Six alirocumab studies used an active treatment comparison group (the remaining used placebo), compared to three evolocumab active comparison trials. Alirocumab compared with placebo decreased the risk of CVD events, with an absolute risk difference (RD) of -2% (odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 0.94; 10 studies, 23,868 participants; high-certainty evidence), decreased the risk of mortality (RD -1%; OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96; 12 studies, 24,797 participants; high-certainty evidence), and MI (RD -2%; OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.94; 9 studies, 23,352 participants; high-certainty evidence) and for any stroke (RD 0%; OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.91; 8 studies, 22,835 participants; high-certainty evidence). Compared to active treatment the alirocumab effects, for CVD, the RD was 1% (OR 1.37, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.87; 3 studies, 1379 participants; low-certainty evidence); for mortality, RD was -1% (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.40; 5 studies, 1333 participants; low-certainty evidence); for MI, RD was 1% (OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.28, 5 studies, 1734 participants; low-certainty evidence); and for any stroke, RD was less than 1% (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.13 to 5.61; 5 studies, 1734 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo the evolocumab, for CVD, the RD was -2% (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.91; 3 studies, 29,432 participants; high-certainty evidence); for mortality, RD was less than 1% (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.19; 3 studies, 29,432 participants; high-certainty evidence); for MI, RD was -1% (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.82; 3 studies, 29,432 participants; high-certainty evidence); and for any stroke RD was less than -1% (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.94; 2 studies, 28,531 participants; high-certainty evidence). Compared to active treatment, the evolocumab effects, for any CVD event RD was less than -1% (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.04; 1 study, 218 participants; very low-certainty evidence); for all-cause mortality, the RD was less than 1% (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.30; 3 studies, 5223 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and for MI, RD was less than 1% (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.85; 3 studies, 5003 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were insufficient data on any stroke. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for the clinical endpoint effects of evolocumab and alirocumab were graded as high. There is a strong evidence base to prescribe PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies to people who might not be eligible for other lipid-lowering drugs, or to people who cannot meet their lipid goals on more traditional therapies, which was the main patient population of the available trials. The evidence base of PCSK9 inhibitors compared with active treatment is much weaker (low very- to low-certainty evidence) and it is unclear whether evolocumab or alirocumab might be effectively used as replacement therapies. Related, most of the available studies preferentially enrolled people with either established CVD or at a high risk already, and evidence in low- to medium-risk settings is minimal. Finally, there is very limited evidence on any potential safety issues of both evolocumab and alirocumab. While the current evidence synthesis does not reveal any adverse signals, neither does it provide evidence against such signals. This suggests careful consideration of alternative lipid lowering treatments before prescribing PCSK9 inhibitors.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Anticholesteremic Agents; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cause of Death; Cholesterol, LDL; Cholinergic Antagonists; Ezetimibe; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Middle Aged; Myocardial Infarction; PCSK9 Inhibitors; Primary Prevention; Proprotein Convertase 9; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention; Stroke; Time Factors
PubMed: 33078867
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011748.pub3 -
Autoimmunity Reviews Jan 2021The testing of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA) takes an important place in the diagnostic workup to ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV). Nowadays, it is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The testing of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA) takes an important place in the diagnostic workup to ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV). Nowadays, it is recommended to screen for the presence of PR3 and MPO specific antibodies first using immunoassay, without the need for ANCA measurement by indirect immunofluorescence (IIF). A literature search was performed to assess the diagnostic test value of ANCA IIF and PR3- and MPO-antibody immunoassay to diagnose AAV. This meta-analysis shows that the c-ANCA testing by IIF has a pooled sensitivity of 75.2% and a pooled specificity of 98.4%. For PR3-antibody immunoassay, the pooled sensitivity depended on the immunoassay method used, and ranged from 79.8% to 86.6%, whereas the pooled specificity ranged from 96.8% to 98.3%. For both p-ANCA IIF and MPO-antibody immunoassay (all methods) sensitivity varied considerably showing pooled values of respectively 46.3% and 58.1%, whereas respective pooled specificity was 91.4% and 95.6%. These findings support the 2017 international consensus that primary anti-PR3 and anti-MPO screening by immunoassay, based on superior immunoassay sensitivity without the need for IIF ANCA testing, improves the diagnostic workup of AAV.
Topics: Anti-Neutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibody-Associated Vasculitis; Antibodies, Antineutrophil Cytoplasmic; Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay; Fluorescent Antibody Technique, Indirect; Humans; Immunoassay; Myeloblastin; Peroxidase
PubMed: 33197574
DOI: 10.1016/j.autrev.2020.102716 -
Critical Care Medicine Oct 2021To combine evidence on andexanet alfa and prothrombin complex concentrates for factor Xa inhibitor-associated bleeding to guide clinicians on reversal strategies. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To combine evidence on andexanet alfa and prothrombin complex concentrates for factor Xa inhibitor-associated bleeding to guide clinicians on reversal strategies.
DATA SOURCES
Embase, Pubmed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library.
STUDY SELECTION
Observational studies and randomized clinical trials studying hemostatic effectiveness of andexanet alfa or prothrombin complex concentrate for acute reversal of factor Xa inhibitor-associated hemorrhage.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two independent reviewers extracted the data from the studies. Visualization and comparison of hemostatic effectiveness using Sarode et al or International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis Scientific and Standardization Committee criteria at 12 and 24 hours, (venous) thrombotic event rates, and inhospital mortality were performed by constructing Forest plots. Exploratory analysis using a logistic mixed model analysis was performed to identify factors associated with effectiveness and venous thromboembolic event.
DATA SYNTHESIS
A total of 21 studies were included (andexanet: 438 patients; prothrombin complex concentrate: 1,278 patients). The (weighted) mean effectiveness for andexanet alfa was 82% at 12 hours and 71% at 24 hours. The (weighted) mean effectiveness for prothrombin complex concentrate was 88% at 12 hours and 76% at 24 hours. The mean 30-day symptomatic venous thromboembolic event rates were 5.0% for andexanet alfa and 1.9% for prothrombin complex concentrate. The mean 30-day total thrombotic event rates for andexanet alfa and prothrombin complex concentrate were 10.7% and 3.1%, respectively. Mean inhospital mortality was 23.3% for andexanet versus 15.8% for prothrombin complex concentrate. Exploratory analysis controlling for potential confounders did not demonstrate significant differences between both reversal agents.
CONCLUSIONS
Currently, available evidence does not unequivocally support the clinical effectiveness of andexanet alfa or prothrombin complex concentrate to reverse factor Xa inhibitor-associated acute major bleeding, nor does it permit conventional meta-analysis of potential superiority. Neither reversal agent was significantly associated with increased effectiveness or a higher rate of venous thromboembolic event. These results underscore the importance of randomized controlled trials comparing the two reversal agents and may provide guidance in designing institutional guidelines.
Topics: Coagulants; Factor Xa; Factor Xa Inhibitors; Hemorrhage; Humans; Prothrombin; Recombinant Proteins
PubMed: 33967205
DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000005059 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2022Acute pulmonary embolism (APE) is a major cause of acute morbidity and mortality. APE results in long-term morbidity in up to 50% of survivors, known as post-pulmonary... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Acute pulmonary embolism (APE) is a major cause of acute morbidity and mortality. APE results in long-term morbidity in up to 50% of survivors, known as post-pulmonary embolism (post-PE) syndrome. APE can be classified according to the short-term (30-day) risk of mortality, based on a variety of clinical, imaging and laboratory findings. Most mortality and morbidity is concentrated in high-risk (massive) and intermediate-risk (submassive) APE. The first-line treatment for APE is systemic anticoagulation. High-risk (massive) APE accounts for less than 10% of APE cases and is a life-threatening medical emergency, requiring immediate reperfusion treatment to prevent death. Systemic thrombolysis is the recommended treatment for high-risk (massive) APE. However, only a minority of the people affected receive systemic thrombolysis, due to comorbidities or the 10% risk of major haemorrhagic side effects. Of those who do receive systemic thrombolysis, 8% do not respond in a timely manner. Surgical pulmonary embolectomy is an alternative reperfusion treatment, but is not widely available. Intermediate-risk (submassive) APE represents 45% to 65% of APE cases, with a short-term mortality rate of around 3%. Systemic thrombolysis is not recommended for this group, as major haemorrhagic complications outweigh the benefit. However, the people at higher risk within this group have a short-term mortality of around 12%, suggesting that anticoagulation alone is not an adequate treatment. Identification and more aggressive treatment of people at intermediate to high risk, who have a more favourable risk profile for reperfusion treatments, could reduce short-term mortality and potentially reduce post-PE syndrome. Catheter-directed treatments (catheter-directed thrombolysis and catheter embolectomy) are minimally invasive reperfusion treatments for high- and intermediate-risk APE. Catheter-directed treatments can be used either as the primary treatment or as salvage treatment after failure of systemic thrombolysis. Catheter-directed thrombolysis administers 10% to 20% of the systemic thrombolysis dose directly into the thrombus in the lungs, potentially reducing the risks of haemorrhagic side effects. Catheter embolectomy mechanically removes the thrombus without the need for thrombolysis, and may be useful for people with contraindications for thrombolysis. Currently, the benefits of catheter-based APE treatments compared with existing medical and surgical treatment are unclear despite increasing adoption of catheter treatments by PE response teams. This review examines the evidence for the use of catheter-directed treatments in high- and intermediate-risk APE. This evidence could help guide the optimal treatment strategy for people affected by this common and life-threatening condition.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of catheter-directed therapies versus alternative treatments for high-risk (massive) and intermediate-risk (submassive) APE.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was 15 March 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of catheter-directed therapies for the treatment of high-risk (massive) and intermediate-risk (submassive) APE. We excluded catheter-directed treatments for non-PE. We applied no restrictions on participant age or on the date, language or publication status of RCTs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. The main outcomes were all-cause mortality, treatment-associated major and minor haemorrhage rates based on two established clinical definitions, recurrent APE requiring retreatment or change to a different APE treatment, length of hospital stay, and quality of life. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified one RCT (59 participants) of (ultrasound-augmented) catheter-directed thrombolysis for intermediate-risk (submassive) APE. We found no trials of any catheter-directed treatments (thrombectomy or thrombolysis) in people with high-risk (massive) APE or of catheter-based embolectomy in people with intermediate-risk (submassive) APE. The included trial compared ultrasound-augmented catheter-directed thrombolysis with alteplase and systemic heparinisation versus systemic heparinisation alone. In the treatment group, each participant received an infusion of alteplase 10 mg or 20 mg over 15 hours. We identified a high risk of selection and performance bias, low risk of detection and reporting bias, and unclear risk of attrition and other bias. Certainty of evidence was very low because of risk of bias and imprecision. By 90 days, there was no clear difference in all-cause mortality between the treatment group and control group. A single death occurred in the control group at 20 days after randomisation, but it was unrelated to the treatment or to APE (odds ratio (OR) 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 7.96; 59 participants). By 90 days, there were no episodes of treatment-associated major haemorrhage in either the treatment or control group. There was no clear difference in treatment-associated minor haemorrhage between the treatment and control group by 90 days (OR 3.11, 95% CI 0.30 to 31.79; 59 participants). By 90 days, there were no episodes of recurrent APE requiring retreatment or change to a different APE treatment in the treatment or control group. There was no clear difference in the length of mean total hospital stay between the treatment and control groups. Mean stay was 8.9 (standard deviation (SD) 3.4) days in the treatment group versus 8.6 (SD 3.9) days in the control group (mean difference 0.30, 95% CI -1.57 to 2.17; 59 participants). The included trial did not investigate quality of life measures. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of evidence to support widespread adoption of catheter-based interventional therapies for APE. We identified one small trial showing no clear differences between ultrasound-augmented catheter-directed thrombolysis with alteplase plus systemic heparinisation versus systemic heparinisation alone in all-cause mortality, major and minor haemorrhage rates, recurrent APE and length of hospital stay. Quality of life was not assessed. Multiple small retrospective case series, prospective patient registries and single-arm studies suggest potential benefits of catheter-based treatments, but they provide insufficient evidence to recommend this approach over other evidence-based treatments. Researchers should consider clinically relevant primary outcomes (e.g. mortality and exercise tolerance), rather than surrogate markers (e.g. right ventricular to left ventricular (RV:LV) ratio or thrombus burden), which have limited clinical utility. Trials must include a control group to determine if the effects are specific to the treatment.
Topics: Acute Disease; Anticoagulants; Hemorrhage; Humans; Pulmonary Embolism; Thrombolytic Therapy; Tissue Plasminogen Activator
PubMed: 35938605
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013083.pub2 -
World Journal of Urology Dec 2023To compare long-term reoperation rate and functional outcomes between EEP (endoscopic enucleation of the prostate) and TURP (transurethral resection of the prostate). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To compare long-term reoperation rate and functional outcomes between EEP (endoscopic enucleation of the prostate) and TURP (transurethral resection of the prostate).
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A systematic literature review of Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted with primary outcome assessed being reoperation rate and secondary outcomes after a long term (> 3 years) being functional outcomes or related values (prostate volume, PSA level, etc.).
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Five studies were found with long-term follow-up 4-7 years. EEP reoperation rate ranged from 0 to 1.27%, while from 1.7 to 17.6% for TURP. Meta-analysis showed significantly lower OR for EEP, 0.27 (95% CI 0.24-0.31), with notable homogeneity of the results, I = 0%. Long-term Qmax and IPSS were significantly better for EEP. Q pooled mean difference was 1.79 (95% CI 1.72-1.86) ml/s with a high concordance among the studies, I = 0%. IPSS mean difference -1.24 (95% CI - 1.28 to - 1.2) points, I = 57% but QoL did not differ, with mean difference being 0.01 (95% CI - 0.02 to 0.04), I = 0%. IIEF-5 score was also significantly better for EEP, mean difference 1.08 (95% CI 1.03-1.13), but heterogeneity was high, I = 70%. PSA level and prostate volume were only reported in one study and favored EEP slightly yet statistically significant.
CONCLUSION
EEP had a significantly lower reoperation rate and better functional outcomes (Q and IPSS) at long term compared with TURP. It may also be beneficial in terms of IIEF-5, PVR, and PSA level.
Topics: Male; Humans; Transurethral Resection of Prostate; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Quality of Life; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37980297
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-023-04666-8