-
The Lancet. Microbe Nov 2023Randomised controlled trials of passive antibodies as treatment and prophylaxis for COVID-19 have reported variable efficacy. However, the determinants of efficacy have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Randomised controlled trials of passive antibodies as treatment and prophylaxis for COVID-19 have reported variable efficacy. However, the determinants of efficacy have not been identified. We aimed to assess how the dose and timing of administration affect treatment outcome.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we extracted data from published studies of passive antibody treatment from Jan 1, 2019, to Jan 31, 2023, that were identified by searching multiple databases, including MEDLINE, PubMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We included only randomised controlled trials of passive antibody administration for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. To compare administered antibody dose between different treatments, we used data on in-vitro neutralisation titres to normalise dose by antibody potency. We used mixed-effects regression and model fitting to analyse the relationship between timing, dose and efficacy.
FINDINGS
We found 58 randomised controlled trials that investigated passive antibody therapies for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. Earlier clinical stage at treatment initiation was highly predictive of the efficacy of both monoclonal antibodies (p<0·0001) and convalescent plasma therapy (p=0·030) in preventing progression to subsequent stages, with either prophylaxis or treatment in outpatients showing the greatest effects. For the treatment of outpatients with COVID-19, we found a significant association between the dose administered and efficacy in preventing hospitalisation (relative risk 0·77; p<0·0001). Using this relationship, we predicted that no approved monoclonal antibody was expected to provide more than 30% efficacy against some omicron (B.1.1.529) subvariants, such as BQ.1.1.
INTERPRETATION
Early administration before hospitalisation and sufficient doses of passive antibody therapy are crucial to achieving high efficacy in preventing clinical progression. The relationship between dose and efficacy provides a framework for the rational assessment of future passive antibody prophylaxis and treatment strategies for COVID-19.
FUNDING
The Australian Government Department of Health, Medical Research Future Fund, National Health and Medical Research Council, the University of New South Wales, Monash University, Haematology Society of Australia and New Zealand, Leukaemia Foundation, and the Victorian Government.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Serotherapy; Australia; Treatment Outcome; Antibodies, Monoclonal
PubMed: 37924835
DOI: 10.1016/S2666-5247(23)00194-5 -
Graefe's Archive For Clinical and... Oct 2020Intravitreal injection of VEGF inhibitors has become the standard of care for different macular diseases within the last years resulting in improved visual outcomes.... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Intravitreal injection of VEGF inhibitors has become the standard of care for different macular diseases within the last years resulting in improved visual outcomes. Under real-life conditions, however, the necessity for frequent retreatments and reexaminations poses a burden for patients and treatment centers. Non-adherence and non-persistence to intravitreal treatment may lead to inferior clinical outcomes, and knowledge of contributing factors is crucial to improve adherence. This systematic review analyzes current literature for potential factors involved in non-adherence and non-persistence.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and Embase including three different aspects of intravitreal injection therapy: (1) diseases with intravitreal injections as treatment, (2) intravitreal injection, and (3) aspects of therapy adherence or therapy persistence. Data from identified quantitative studies were further extracted and grouped according to WHO criteria (condition, socio-economy, therapy, patient, and health system). The methodological quality of identified studies was graded. Identified qualitative studies (i.e., interviews) were descriptively analyzed and their findings narratively reported.
RESULTS
Twenty-four publications were included. In 16 of those publications, a quantitative data analysis was conducted, analyzing factors associated with non-adherence. Worse visual acuity at baseline and unfavorable development of visual acuity, higher age, and greater distance to the treatment center were associated with non-adherence, while there was inconsistent evidence for an association of comorbidity. In qualitative studies, high follow-up/treatment burden, fear and anxiety, disappointed patient expectations, and lack of motivation to continue treatment were reported as reasons for non-persistence.
CONCLUSIONS
Knowledge of potential barriers in IVT treatment may improve adherence and potentially clinical results. Improvements can be achieved particularly in the healthcare complex (organizational improvements) and the "patient" complex by establishing realistic expectations. Recurrent education of the patient may be necessary.
Topics: Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Humans; Intravitreal Injections; Ranibizumab; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 32572607
DOI: 10.1007/s00417-020-04798-2 -
International Journal of... 2023Lecanemab is the latest monoclonal antibody that targets beta-amyloid approved exclusively for treatment of Alzheimer's disease with mild cognitive impairment or mild...
BACKGROUND
Lecanemab is the latest monoclonal antibody that targets beta-amyloid approved exclusively for treatment of Alzheimer's disease with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia. This article aims to provide a systematic review of the efficacy, and safety of lecanemab in slowing clinical decline in Alzheimer's disease.
METHODS
A comprehensive search of various databases, including the National Institute of Health clinical trials registry, PubMed, and the Cochrane library, was conducted until July 2023 using the keywords lecanemab, BAN2401, and Alzheimer's disease. Additionally, conference abstracts listed in the Cochrane database (including Embase) and drug information from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) label were examined. Only clinical trials published in the English language were considered. In total, 107 articles were retrieved, and after thorough evaluation, three randomized, double-blind, multicenter clinical trials involving 2729 participants were included in the analysis.
RESULTS
The FDA approved lecanemab for Alzheimer's disease in January 2023 which acts as a novel disease-modifying anti-amyloid-beta (Aβ) human monoclonal antibody and is administered intravenously. Based on the clinical trials included in this review, lecanemab was found efficacious in reducing the accumulation of beta-amyloid and slowing down the cognitive decline and it was well tolerated. Lecanemab had a statistically significant change from baseline in Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), Alzheimer's Disease Composite Score (ADCOMS), Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAScog14), Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment (ADCS-MCI-ADL), and reductions in brain amyloid burden. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were headache, infusion-related reactions, and Amyloid related imaging abnormalities-edema.
CONCLUSIONS
Lecanemab therapy led to a substantial decrease in amyloid plaques and a noticeable slowing of clinical decline. The findings suggest a meaningful connection between the reduction in amyloid and the positive impact on patients' clinical outcomes, hinting at potential disease-modifying effects.
Topics: Humans; Alzheimer Disease; Activities of Daily Living; Amyloid beta-Peptides; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Multicenter Studies as Topic
PubMed: 37902139
DOI: 10.1177/03946320231209839 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2022Clinical evidence suggests that first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combination therapies can improve survival in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A systematic review and network meta-analysis of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor combination therapies in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer.
INTRODUCTION
Clinical evidence suggests that first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combination therapies can improve survival in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (nsq-NSCLC). However, the optimal strategy remains unknown without a systematic comparison of their long-term effects.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis by retrieving up-to-date literature from PubMed (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA), Embase (Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands), MEDLINE (National Library of Medicine), ClinicalTrials.gov (National Library of Medicine), and major international conference publications. Published studies and abstracts comparing first-line ICI combination therapies with other treatments for patients with advanced nsq-NSCLC were included. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) was measured over 12 months for progression-free survival (PFS) and 18 months for overall survival (OS), and the Royston-Parmar model was used to extrapolate and compare data for the long-term outcomes.
RESULTS
We included a total of 11 trials involving 12 therapies and 6,130 patients. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy exhibited the best overall survival (OS) benefit at both 18 and 60 months [RMST = 2.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.96 to 3.97; life-years gained over a 5-year period = 2.18 years]. Nivolumab plus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy was found to present the best progression-free survival (PFS) benefit at 12 months (RMST 3.02, 95% CI 2.11 to 3.91), whereas atezolizumab plus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy showed the best PFS benefit at 36 months (life-years gained over 3 years = 1.22 years). Subgroup analyses showed that among patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥ 50%, atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab resulted in superior OS benefits at 18 and 60 months, respectively. Among patients with PD-L1 expression< 1%, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was associated with OS benefits at both 18 and 60 months. Sintilimab plus chemotherapy was associated with relatively fewer grade ≥ 3 adverse events than other ICI combination therapies.
CONCLUSION
Our results show that ICI combination therapies showed better survival benefits than chemotherapy. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy could provide the best OS benefits to patients with advanced nsq-NSCLC, whereas atezolizumab plus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy could bring the best PFS benefits. The optimal ICI combination therapy varies depending on PD-L1 expression level.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=325005, identifier CRD42022325005.
Topics: United States; Humans; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; B7-H1 Antigen; Nivolumab; Lung Neoplasms; Network Meta-Analysis; Bevacizumab; Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
PubMed: 36389713
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.948597 -
Radiotherapy and Oncology : Journal of... Sep 2023In recent years, the treatment landscape for breast cancer has undergone significant advancements, with the introduction of several new anticancer agents. One such agent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
In recent years, the treatment landscape for breast cancer has undergone significant advancements, with the introduction of several new anticancer agents. One such agent is trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1), an antibody drug conjugate that has shown improved outcomes in both early and advanced breast cancer. However, there is currently a lack of comprehensive evidence regarding the safety profile of combining T-DM1 with radiation therapy (RT). In this study, we aim to provide a summary of the available data on the safety of combining RT with T-DM1 in both early and metastatic breast cancer settings.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis project is part of the consensus recommendations by the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) Guidelines Committee on integrating RT with targeted treatments for breast cancer. A thorough literature search was conducted using the PUBMED/MedLine, Embase, and Cochrane databases to identify original studies focusing on the safety profile of combining T-DM1 with RT.
RESULTS
After applying eligibility criteria, nine articles were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled data from these studies revealed a high incidence of grade 3 + radionecrosis (17%), while the rates of grade 3 + radiation-related pneumonitis (<1%) and skin toxicity (1%) were found to be very low.
CONCLUSION
Although there is some concern regarding a slight increase in pneumonitis when combining T-DM1 with postoperative RT, the safety profile of this combination was deemed acceptable for locoregional treatment in non-metastatic breast cancer. However, caution is advised when irradiating intracranial sites concurrently with T-DM1. There is a pressing need for international consensus guidelines regarding the safety considerations of combining T-DM1 and RT for breast cancer.
Topics: Humans; Female; Ado-Trastuzumab Emtansine; Trastuzumab; Receptor, ErbB-2; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Maytansine; Treatment Outcome; Breast Neoplasms
PubMed: 37437610
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109805 -
BMJ Open Nov 2023Head-to-head clinical trials are common in psoriasis, but scarce in psoriatic arthritis (PsA), making treatment comparisons between therapeutic classes difficult. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Head-to-head clinical trials are common in psoriasis, but scarce in psoriatic arthritis (PsA), making treatment comparisons between therapeutic classes difficult. This study describes the relative effectiveness of targeted synthetic (ts) and biologic (b) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) through network meta-analysis (NMA).
DESIGN
A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted in January 2020. Bayesian NMAs were conducted to compare treatments on Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and 36-item Short Form (SF-36) Health Survey including Mental Component Summary (MCS) and Physical Component Summary (PCS) scores.
DATA SOURCES
Ovid MEDLINE (including Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily),Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating patients with PsA receiving tsDMARDS, bDMARDs or placebo were included in the SLR; there was no restriction on outcomes.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two independent researchers reviewed all citations. Data for studies meeting all inclusion criteria were extracted into a standardised Excel-based form by one reviewer and validated by a second reviewer. A third reviewer was consulted to resolve any discrepancies, as necessary. Risk of bias was assessed using the The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical effectiveness quality assessment checklist.
RESULTS
In total, 26 RCTs were included. For HAQ-DI, SF-36 PCS and SF-36 MCS scores, intravenous tumour necrosis factor (TNF) alpha inhibitors generally ranked higher than most other classes of therapies available to treat patients with PsA. For almost all outcomes, several interleukin (IL)-23, IL-17A, subcutaneous TNF and IL-12/23 agents offered comparable improvement, while cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4, phosphodiesterase-4 and Janus kinase inhibitors often had the lowest efficacy.
CONCLUSIONS
While intravenous TNFs may provide some improvements in PROs relative to several other tsDMARDs and bDMARDs for the treatment of patients with PsA, differences between classes of therapies across outcomes were small.
Topics: Humans; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Network Meta-Analysis; Antirheumatic Agents; Patient Reported Outcome Measures
PubMed: 37940157
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-062306 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2020Aspirin and heparin are widely used as preventive strategy to reduce the high risk of recurrent pregnancy loss in women with antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Aspirin and heparin are widely used as preventive strategy to reduce the high risk of recurrent pregnancy loss in women with antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). This review supersedes a previous, out-of-date review that evaluated all potential therapies for preventing recurrent pregnancy loss in women with aPL. The current review focusses on a narrower scope because current clinical practice is restricted to using aspirin or heparins, or both for women with aPL in an attempt to reduce pregnancy complications.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of aspirin or heparin, or both for improving pregnancy outcomes in women with persistent (on two separate occasions) aPL, either lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin (aCL) or aβ-glycoprotein-I antibodies (aβGPI) or a combination, and recurrent pregnancy loss (two or more, which do not have to be consecutive).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (3 June 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies. Where necessary, we attempted to contact trial authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, cluster-randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that assess the effects of aspirin, heparin (either low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin (UFH]), or a combination of aspirin and heparin compared with no treatment, placebo or another, on pregnancy outcomes in women with persistent aPL and recurrent pregnancy loss were eligible. All treatment regimens were considered.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion criteria and risk of bias. Two review authors independently extracted data and checked them for accuracy and the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Eleven studies (1672 women) met the inclusion criteria; nine randomised controlled trials and two quasi-RCTs. The studies were conducted in the USA, Canada, UK, China, New Zealand, Iraq and Egypt. One included trial involved 1015 women, all other included trials had considerably lower numbers of participants (i.e. 141 women or fewer). Some studies had high risk of selection and attrition bias, and many did not include sufficient information to judge the risk of reporting bias. Overall, the certainty of evidence is low to very low due to the small numbers of women in the studies and to the risk of bias. The dose and type of heparin and aspirin varied among studies. One study compared aspirin alone with placebo; no studies compared heparin alone with placebo and there were no trials that had a no treatment comparator arm during pregnancy; five studies explored the efficacy of heparin (either UFH or LMWH) combined with aspirin compared with aspirin alone; one trial compared LMWH with aspirin; two trials compared the combination of LMWH plus aspirin with the combination of UFH plus aspirin; two studies evaluated the combination of different doses of heparin combined with aspirin. All trials used aspirin at a low dose. Aspirin versus placebo We are very uncertain if aspirin has any effect on live birth compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.25, 1 trial, 40 women, very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain if aspirin has any effect on the risk of pre-eclampsia, pregnancy loss, preterm delivery of a live infant, intrauterine growth restriction or adverse events in the child, compared to placebo. We are very uncertain if aspirin has any effect on adverse events (bleeding) in the mother compared with placebo (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.77, 1 study, 40 women). The certainty of evidence for these outcomes is very low because of imprecision, due to the low numbers of women involved and the wide 95% CIs, and also because of risk of bias. Venous thromboembolism and arterial thromboembolism were not reported in the included studies. Heparin plus aspirin versus aspirin alone Heparin plus aspirin may increase the number of live births (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.49, 5 studies, 1295 women, low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if heparin plus aspirin has any effect on the risk of pre-eclampsia, preterm delivery of a live infant, or intrauterine growth restriction, compared with aspirin alone because of risk of bias and imprecision due to the low numbers of women involved and the wide 95% CIs. We are very uncertain if heparin plus aspirin has any effect on adverse events (bleeding) in the mother compared with aspirin alone (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.19 to 14.03, 1 study, 31 women). No women in either the heparin plus aspirin group or the aspirin alone group had heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, allergic reactions, or venous or arterial thromboembolism. Similarly, no infants had congenital malformations. Heparin plus aspirin may reduce the risk of pregnancy loss (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.71, 5 studies, 1295 women, low-certainty evidence). When comparing LMWH plus aspirin versus aspirin alone the pooled RR for live birth was 1.20 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.38, 3 trials, 1155 women). In the comparison of UFH plus aspirin versus aspirin alone, the RR for live birth was 1.74 (95% CI 1.28 to 2.35, 2 trials, 140 women).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The combination of heparin (UFH or LMWH) plus aspirin during the course of pregnancy may increase live birth rate in women with persistent aPL when compared with aspirin treatment alone. The observed beneficial effect of heparin was driven by one large study in which LMWH plus aspirin was compared with aspirin alone. Adverse events were frequently not, or not uniformly, reported in the included studies. More research is needed in this area in order to further evaluate potential risks and benefits of this treatment strategy, especially among women with aPL and recurrent pregnancy loss, to gain consensus on the ideal prevention for recurrent pregnancy loss, based on a risk profile.
Topics: Abortion, Habitual; Antibodies, Anticardiolipin; Antibodies, Antiphospholipid; Anticoagulants; Aspirin; Bias; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Heparin; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Live Birth; Lupus Coagulation Inhibitor; Placebos; Pre-Eclampsia; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Hematologic; Pregnancy Outcome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; beta 2-Glycoprotein I
PubMed: 32358837
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012852.pub2 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023A series of clinical trials support the effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies for generalized myasthenia gravis (MG) compared to the placebo, but the priority among... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A series of clinical trials support the effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies for generalized myasthenia gravis (MG) compared to the placebo, but the priority among drugs remains unclear. Therefore, we conduct a frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the relative effects of different drugs for generalized MG.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov were systematically searched for eligible studies up to 1 June 2023. The primary outcome was efficacy (Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living [MG-ADL] score and Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis [QMG] score) and safety (adverse events [AEs]). Mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) with their 95% credible intervals (95%CrIs) were used to show the effect size of continuous and categorical variables, respectively. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies involving 1167 individuals were identified for NMA. For efficacy outcomes, belimumab, efgartigimod, mezagitamab 600mg, and nipocalimab 60mg/kg were inferior to rozanolixzumab 7mg/kg (MD ranged from 2 to 3.69) and rozanolixzumab 10mg/kg (MD ranged from 2.04 to 3.72) in MG-ADL score, and rozanolixzumab had the highest rank probability (83%) according to the subjective surface under the curve ranking area (SUCRA). For QMG score, batoclimab 340mg (MD ranged from 4.32 to 8.52) and batoclimab 680mg (MD ranged from 4.11 to 9.31) were more effective than placebo and other monoclonal antibodies except for rozanolixzumab, with the highest SUCRA value (93% and 97% respectively). For safety outcomes, belimumab achieved the highest SUCRA value (89.8%) with significant statistical difference compared to rozanolixzumab 7mg/kg (RR 0.08, 95%CrI 0.01 to 0.94) and rozanolixzumab 10mg/kg (RR 0.08, 95%CrI 0.01 to 0.86).
CONCLUSION
While all monoclonal antibodies were superior to the placebo, rozanolixzumab and batoclimab might be the most effective for generalized MG. However, rozanolixzumab was associated with higher incidence of AEs. Given the limitations inherent in indirect comparisons, further head-to-head and extensive observational studies are necessary to confirm our findings.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://inplasy.com/?s=202370112, identifier 202370112.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Activities of Daily Living; Bayes Theorem; Myasthenia Gravis
PubMed: 38022544
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1280226 -
Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) Jun 2023Patients with HER2+ breast cancer (BC) frequently develop leptomeningeal metastases (LM). While HER2-targeted therapies have demonstrated efficacy in the neoadjuvant,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Patients with HER2+ breast cancer (BC) frequently develop leptomeningeal metastases (LM). While HER2-targeted therapies have demonstrated efficacy in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and metastatic settings, including for parenchymal brain metastases, their efficacy for patients with LM has not been studied in a randomized controlled trial. However, several single-armed prospective studies, case series and case reports have studied oral, intravenous, or intrathecally administered HER2-targeted therapy regimens for patients with HER2+ BC LM.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data to evaluate the efficacy of HER2-targeted therapies in HER2+ BC LM in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Targeted therapies evaluated were trastuzumab (intrathecal or intravenous), pertuzumab, lapatinib, neratinib, tucatinib, trastuzumab-emtansine and trastuzumab-deruxtecan. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), with CNS-specific progression-free survival (PFS) as a secondary endpoint.
RESULTS
7780 abstracts were screened, identifying 45 publications with 208 patients, corresponding to 275 lines of HER2-targeted therapy for BC LM which met inclusion criteria. In univariable and multivariable analyses, we observed no significant difference in OS and CNS-specific PFS between intrathecal trastuzumab compared to oral or intravenous administration of HER2-targeted therapy. Anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody-based regimens did not demonstrate superiority over HER2 tyrosine kinase inhibitors. In a cohort of 15 patients, treatment with trastuzumab-deruxtecan was associated with prolonged OS compared to other HER2-targeted therapies and compared to trastuzumab-emtansine.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this meta-analysis, comprising the limited data available, suggest that intrathecal administration of HER2-targeted therapy for patients with HER2+ BC LM confers no additional benefit over oral and/or IV treatment regimens. Although the number of patients receiving trastuzumab deruxtecan in this cohort is small, this novel agent offers promise for this patient population and requires further investigation in prospective studies.
Topics: Female; Humans; Ado-Trastuzumab Emtansine; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptor, ErbB-2; Trastuzumab; Meningeal Neoplasms
PubMed: 37156650
DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2023.04.008 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2023Vedolizumab blocks inflammatory activity within the gastrointestinal tract. Systematic reviews have demonstrated the efficacy of vedolizumab in ulcerative colitis and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Vedolizumab blocks inflammatory activity within the gastrointestinal tract. Systematic reviews have demonstrated the efficacy of vedolizumab in ulcerative colitis and inflammatory bowel disease in general. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarises the current evidence of vedolizumab in the induction and maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of vedolizumab versus placebo for the induction and maintenance of remission in people with Crohn's disease.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 30 November 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing vedolizumab to placebo for the induction or maintenance of remission in people with Crohn's disease.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. For induction studies, the primary outcome was 1. clinical remission, and secondary outcomes were rates of 2. clinical response, 3. adverse events, 4. serious adverse events, 5. surgery, 6. endoscopic remission and 7. endoscopic response. For maintenance studies, the primary outcome was 1. maintenance of clinical remission, and secondary outcomes were rates of 2. adverse events, 3. serious adverse events, 4. surgery, 5. endoscopic remission and 6. endoscopic response. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We analysed induction (4 trials, 1126 participants) and maintenance (3 trials, 894 participants) studies representing people across North America, Europe, Asia and Australasia separately. One maintenance trial administered subcutaneous vedolizumab whilst the other studies used the intravenous form. The mean age ranged between 32.6 and 38.6 years. Vedolizumab was superior to placebo for the induction of clinical remission (71 more per 1000 with clinical remission with vedolizumab; risk ratio (RR) 1.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 2.17; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 13; 4 studies; high-certainty evidence) and superior to placebo for inducing clinical response (105 more per 1000 with clinical response with vedolizumab; RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.71; NNTB 8; 4 studies; high-certainty evidence). For the induction phase, vedolizumab may be equivalent to placebo for the development of serious adverse events (9 fewer serious adverse events per 1000 with vedolizumab; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.33; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence) and probably equivalent to placebo for overall adverse events (6 fewer adverse events per 1000 with vedolizumab; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.11; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Vedolizumab was superior to placebo for the maintenance of clinical remission (141 more per 1000 with maintenance of clinical remission with vedolizumab; RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.87; NNTB 7; 3 studies; high-certainty evidence). During the maintenance phase, vedolizumab may be equivalent to placebo for the development of serious adverse events (3 fewer serious adverse events per 1000 with vedolizumab; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.39; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence) and probably equivalent to placebo for the development of overall adverse events (0 difference in adverse events per 1000; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
High-certainty data across four induction and three maintenance trials demonstrate that vedolizumab is superior to placebo in the induction and maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease. Overall adverse events are probably similar and serious adverse events may be similar between vedolizumab and placebo during both induction and maintenance phases of treatment. Head-to-head research comparing the efficacy and safety of vedolizumab to other biological therapies is required.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Crohn Disease; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Colitis, Ulcerative; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Remission Induction
PubMed: 37458279
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013611.pub2