-
Arthritis Care & Research Aug 2020Methotrexate (MTX) increases the risk of alopecia and stomatitis, but the prevalence of these adverse events among rheumatic patients taking MTX is poorly defined. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Methotrexate (MTX) increases the risk of alopecia and stomatitis, but the prevalence of these adverse events among rheumatic patients taking MTX is poorly defined. We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to estimate the prevalence of alopecia and stomatitis with MTX in rheumatic diseases.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and CINAHL databases for double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with an MTX monotherapy arm. Alopecia, stomatitis, and oral/mouth ulcers data were extracted. The quality of trials was assessed by 2 authors. We included trials published since 1990 that used at least 10 mg of MTX weekly, coadministered with folic or folinic acid. We estimated the prevalence using random-effects models because heterogeneity was anticipated. Two estimates of prevalence were included; the lower bound estimate included all trials (assuming no alopecia and stomatitis if not mentioned), and the upper bound estimate included only those that specifically described prevalence estimates of alopecia or stomatitis.
RESULTS
Of 3,954 studies identified, 20 RCTs were included, with a total of 24 MTX monotherapy arms, of which 10 reported the prevalence of alopecia (n = 1,113), and 21 reported stomatitis or mouth/oral ulcers (n = 2,056). The prevalence of alopecia was between 1.0% and 4.9%. The prevalence of stomatitis was between 5.7% and 8.0%.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis gives more precise estimates of mucocutaneous adverse events that occur in rheumatic disease patients taking MTX. These estimates will help inform patient decision-making regarding MTX.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Alopecia; Antirheumatic Agents; Double-Blind Method; Female; Folic Acid; Humans; Leucovorin; Male; Methotrexate; Middle Aged; Oral Ulcer; Prevalence; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rheumatic Diseases; Stomatitis
PubMed: 31150157
DOI: 10.1002/acr.23999 -
Medicine Mar 2020The efficacy of panitumumab supplementation for colorectal cancer remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the influence of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The efficacy of panitumumab supplementation for colorectal cancer remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the influence of panitumumab supplementation on treatment efficacy of colorectal cancer.
METHODS
We search PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases through June 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of panitumumab supplementation for colorectal cancer. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effect model.
RESULTS
Five RCTs are included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with control group for colorectal cancer, panitumumab supplementation is associated with the increase in objective response for wild-type (WT) KRAS (RR = 1.70; 95% CI = 1.07-2.69; P = .03), but has no remarkable influence on objective response for mutant KRAS (RR = 0.92; 95% CI = 0.79-1.08; P = .32), objective response (RR = 1.35; 95% CI = 1.00-1.83; P = 0.05), progressive disease for WT KRAS (RR = 0.94; 95% CI = 0.85-1.02; P = .15), mortality (RR = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.69-1.08; P = .20), or mortality for WT KRAS (RR = 0.94; 95% CI = 0.84-1.05; P = .28). In addition, grade 3 and 4 adverse events are found to be higher in panitumumab group than those in control group (RR = 1.17; 95% CI = 1.08-1.27; P = .0001; ).
CONCLUSIONS
Panitumumab supplementation can provide some improvement in objective response for colorectal cancer patients with WT KRAS, but results in the increase in grade 3 and 4 adverse events.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Colorectal Neoplasms; Disease-Free Survival; Female; Fluorouracil; Humans; Leucovorin; Male; Organoplatinum Compounds; Panitumumab; Patient Safety; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32176047
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000019210 -
Campbell Systematic Reviews Sep 2020In the field of terrorism research, the violent radicalisation of individuals towards perpetrating acts of terror has been the subject of academic enquiry for some time.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
In the field of terrorism research, the violent radicalisation of individuals towards perpetrating acts of terror has been the subject of academic enquiry for some time. One core focus by social scientists has been the role of narratives in this process. Narratives have the ability to present a socially constructed version of reality which serves the interest of the narrator(s). In the context of terrorism, by depicting violence as a viable antidote to individual vulnerabilities, the narratives purported for propagandistic purposes have the potential to thwart perceptions of instrumentality (a key characteristic of violent radicalisation). In order to prevent this from happening, researchers and counter-terrorism practitioners have increasingly sought to explore the potential for -narratives; targeted interventions that challenge the rationalisation(s) of violence purported in dominant narratives which, in turn, reconstructs the story. However, there is overwhelming consensus in both government and academic spheres that the concept of the counter-narrative is underdeveloped and, to date, there has been no synthesis of its effectiveness at targeting violent radicalisation-related outcomes.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to provide a synthesis of the effectiveness of counter-narratives in reducing the risk of violent radicalisation.
SEARCH METHODS
After a scoping exercise, the literature was identified through four search stages, including key-word searches of 12 databases, hand searches of reference lists of conceptual papers or books on the topic of counter-narratives, as well as direct contact with experts and professional agencies in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies adopting an experimental or quasiexperimental design where at least one of the independent variables involved comparing a counter-narrative to a control (or comparison exposure) were included in the review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Accounting for duplicates, a total of 2,063 records were identified across two searches. Nineteen studies across 15 publications met the inclusion criteria. These studies were largely of moderate quality and 12 used randomised control trial designs with varying types of controls. The publication years ranged from 2000 to 2018, with the majority of studies published after 2015. The studies represented a range of geographical locations, but the region most heavily represented was North America. In most cases, the dominant narrative(s) "to-be-countered" comprised of hostile social constructions of an adversary or "out-group". The majority of studies challenged these dominant narratives through the use of stereotype-challenging, prosocial, or moral "exemplars". Other techniques included the use of alternative accounts, inoculation and persuasion.
RESULTS
In terms of risk factors for violent radicalisation, there was some disparity on intervention effectiveness. Overall, when pooling all outcomes, the intervention showed a small effect. However, the observed effects varied across different risk factors. Certain approaches (such as counter-stereotypical exemplars) were effective at targeting realistic threat perceptions, in-group favouritism and out-group hostility. However, there was no clear reduction in symbolic threat perceptions or implicit bias. Finally, there was a sparse yet discouraging evidence on the effectiveness of counter-narrative interventions at targeting primary outcomes related to violent radicalisation, such as intent to act violently.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The review contributes to existing literature on violent radicalisation-prevention, highlighting the care and complexity needed to design and evaluate narrative-based interventions which directly counter existing, dominant narratives. The authors note the challenges of conducting high-quality research in the area, but nonetheless encourage researchers to strive for experimental rigour within these confines.
PubMed: 37131913
DOI: 10.1002/cl2.1106 -
Environmental Science and Pollution... Jan 2024Pyrolysis has become an interesting waste valorization method leading to an increasing number of research studies in this field in the last decade. The present study...
Pyrolysis has become an interesting waste valorization method leading to an increasing number of research studies in this field in the last decade. The present study aims to provide a comprehensive knowledge map of scientific production in pyrolysis, discuss the current state of research, and identify the main research hotspots and trends in recent years. The systematic review, supported by analysis of countries and institutions, keyword co-occurrence analysis, analysis of keyword trends, journal analysis, and article impact, was carried out on 6234 journal articles from the Science Citation Index Expanded database of the Web of Science Core Collection. As a result, four main research hotspots were identified: 1) characterization techniques and pyrolysis kinetic models, 2) biochar production and its main applications, 3) bio-oil production and catalytic pyrolysis, and 4) co-pyrolysis, which has become a consolidated research hotspot since 2018. Additionally, the main challenges and opportunities for future research have been identified, such as 1) the development of multi-step kinetic models for studying complex wastes, 2) the integration of biochar into other valorization processes, such as anaerobic digestion, and 3) the development of catalytic hydropyrolysis for the valorization of organic waste. This bibliometric analysis provides a visualization of the current context and future trends in pyrolysis, facilitating future collaborative research and knowledge exchange.
Topics: Bibliometrics; Catalysis; Charcoal; Pyrolysis
PubMed: 38036906
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-023-31186-0 -
BMC Cancer Jul 2021Modified FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GEM-NAB) have been recommended as first-line therapies for advanced pancreatic cancer (PC). Due to the lack of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Modified FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GEM-NAB) have been recommended as first-line therapies for advanced pancreatic cancer (PC). Due to the lack of evidence to directly compare them, we conducted this network meta-analysis to indirectly compare the effectiveness and toxicity of modified FOLFIRINOX and GEM-NAB.
METHODS
The eligible retrospective studies on treatments related to modified FOLFIRINOX and GEM-NAB up to 4 April 2020 were searched and assessed. We used the frequentist model to analyze the survival and toxicity data between different treatments. Pooled analysis for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and events of toxicity were analyzed in this study.
RESULTS
Twenty-two studies were involved in this network meta-analysis. The comparisons on OS and PFS showed that modified FOLFIRINOX and GEM-NAB had similar treatment efficacy (OS: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.78-1.63; PFS: HR: 1.19; 95% CI: 0.85-1.67). GEM-NAB was more effective than modified FOLFIRINOX based on the result of ORR (RR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.04-1.96). Moreover, our analysis showed a similar toxicity profile between modified FOLFIRINOX and GEM-NAB.
CONCLUSIONS
The current evidence showed that modified FOLFIRINOX and GEM-NAB were similar in survival and toxicity. Many factors should be considered for in the formulation of optimal treatment, and our meta-analysis could provide some guidance to treatment selection in the first-line setting for advanced PC.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Albumins; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Deoxycytidine; Female; Fluorouracil; Humans; Irinotecan; Leucovorin; Male; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Staging; Oxaliplatin; Paclitaxel; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Prognosis; Publication Bias; Treatment Outcome; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 34301232
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-021-08605-x -
Renal Failure 2023Coronary artery calcification (CAC) is common in dialysis patients and is associated with a higher risk of future cardiovascular events. Sodium thiosulfate (STS) is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Coronary artery calcification (CAC) is common in dialysis patients and is associated with a higher risk of future cardiovascular events. Sodium thiosulfate (STS) is effective for calciphylaxis in dialysis patients; however, the influence of STS on CAC in dialysis patients remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the effects of STS on CAC in patients undergoing dialysis. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wanfang databases were searched from inception to 22 March 2023 for controlled studies comparing the influence of STS versus usual care without STS on CAC scores in dialysis patients. A random effects model incorporating the potential influence of heterogeneity was used to pool the results. Nine studies, including two non-randomized studies and seven randomized controlled trials, were included in the meta-analysis. Among these, 365 patients on dialysis were included in the study. Compared with usual care without STS, intravenous STS for 3-6 months was associated with significantly reduced CAC scores (mean difference [MD] = -180.17, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -276.64 to -83.70, < 0.001, I = 0%). Sensitivity analysis limited to studies of patients on hemodialysis showed similar results (MD: -167.33, 95% CI: -266.57 to -68.09, = 0.001; I = 0%). Subgroup analyses according to study design, sample size, mean age, sex, dialysis vintage of the patients, and treatment duration of STS also showed consistent results (p for subgroup differences all > 0.05). In conclusion, intravenous STS may be effective in attenuating CAC in dialysis patients.
Topics: Humans; Coronary Artery Disease; Renal Dialysis; Thiosulfates; Vascular Calcification
PubMed: 37755153
DOI: 10.1080/0886022X.2023.2254569 -
The Journal of International Medical... Apr 2022To undertake a meta-analysis of the treatment effects of different second-line chemotherapy regimens compared with FOLFIRINOX (FOL [folinic acid], F [fluorouracil], IRIN... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To undertake a meta-analysis of the treatment effects of different second-line chemotherapy regimens compared with FOLFIRINOX (FOL [folinic acid], F [fluorouracil], IRIN [irinotecan], OX [oxaliplatin]) after failure of gemcitabine-based first-line therapy in patients with pancreatic cancer.
METHODS
This meta-analysis searched electronic databases, including Embase®, Medline, PubMed® and the Cochrane library, for eligible studies that reported the use of FOLFIRINOX and other drug regimens as second-line chemotherapy after failure of gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. Pooled analyses for progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) and grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TRAEs) were undertaken.
RESULTS
The analysis included six studies with a total of 858 patients. Compared with the three other second-line regimens, FOLFIRINOX had a significantly longer PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52, 0.89) and OS (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59, 0.86); and a significantly better ORR (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.23, 0.80) and DCR (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58, 0.88). However, grade 3/4 adverse events were more frequently reported in patients administered FOLFIRINOX compared with the other three regimens.
CONCLUSION
FOLFIRINOX is recommended as a second-line chemotherapy regimen for patients with pancreatic cancer that have failed on gemcitabine-based first-line therapy.Research Registry number: reviewregistry1300.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Deoxycytidine; Fluorouracil; Humans; Irinotecan; Leucovorin; Oxaliplatin; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 35481414
DOI: 10.1177/03000605221093225 -
Medicine Jul 2021It is necessary to systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of bevacizumab (BEV) combined with 5-fluorouracil + leucovorin + oxaliplatin (FOLFOX)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
It is necessary to systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of bevacizumab (BEV) combined with 5-fluorouracil + leucovorin + oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) regimen in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer.
METHODS
We searched the PubMed et al databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the BEV combined with the FOLFOX regimen in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer up to January 20, 2021. The Cochrane Collaborations' risk of bias tool was used for the quality assessment of included RCTs. Revman5.3 software was used for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Eleven RCTs with a total of 3178 patients with advanced colorectal cancer were included, meta-analysis results showed that the objective response rate (odds ratio [OR] = 3.15, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 2.25-4.40, P < .001) and cancer control rate (OR = 2.73, 95% CI: 1.91-3.90, P < .001) of BEV + FOLFOX were higher than that of FOLFOX group. And the incidence of gastrointestinal adverse reactions (OR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.07-1.55, P = .008) in the BEV + FOLFOX group was higher than that of the FOLFOX group, there were no significant differences in the incidence of leukopenia (OR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.72-1.50, P = .83), hypertension (OR = 3.92, 95% CI: 0.81-18.88, P = .09) and neurotoxicity (OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.8-1.27, P = .98) between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSION
BEV combined with the FOLFOX regimen is more effective than the FOLFOX regimen alone in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer, but it may also increase the risk of gastrointestinal adverse reactions.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bevacizumab; Colorectal Neoplasms; Fluorouracil; Humans; Leucovorin; Organoplatinum Compounds
PubMed: 34397704
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000026714 -
European Review For Medical and... Jun 2020Intravenous lipid emulsions (ILE) were developed many decades ago to supply nutritional requirements to patients unable to obtain adequate enteral nutrition. The utility...
OBJECTIVE
Intravenous lipid emulsions (ILE) were developed many decades ago to supply nutritional requirements to patients unable to obtain adequate enteral nutrition. The utility of ILE was extended to therapeutics, facilitating the delivery of drugs. More recently, the potential for ILE to act as an antidote for inversion of drug toxicity has been recognized. This review aims to summarize the literature on ILE therapy as an antidote. Suggested mechanisms of action, safety profile, and recommendations on the administration of ILE in cases of drug intoxication are highlighted.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A complete literature survey was performed using the PubMed database search to collect available information regarding mechanisms of ILE action as an antidote, ILE administration for drug toxicity, and presentation of adverse events.
RESULTS
A total of 102 studies met the selection criteria for inclusion in the review. Mainly used for local anesthetics toxicity, ILE therapy has been expanded in clinical toxicology involving overdose treatment of drugs other than local anesthetics. Partitioning in a lipid phase of fat droplets is a mechanism named the lipid sink phenomenon that has primarily been described to explain this action of ILE and remains the most widely accepted. At the same time, recent research has also revealed several molecular mechanisms that may contribute to ILE efficacy.
CONCLUSIONS
ILE therapy comprises a recognized approach in clinical toxicology. Due to the lack of randomized clinical trials, recommendations on administration are based on animal studies and published cases. Thus, the constantly increased knowledge about ILE therapy supports the need for a detailed appraisal.
Topics: Anesthetics, Local; Animals; Antidotes; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Fat Emulsions, Intravenous; Humans
PubMed: 32633409
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202006_21708 -
Annals of Surgical Oncology Dec 2021The added value of radiotherapy following neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer ((B)RPC) is unclear.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The added value of radiotherapy following neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer ((B)RPC) is unclear. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare outcomes of patients who received neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX alone or combined with radiotherapy.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed in Embase, Medline (ovidSP), Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, and Google Scholar. The primary endpoint was pooled median overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included resection rate, R0 resection rate, and other pathologic outcomes.
RESULTS
We included 512 patients with (B)RPC from 15 studies, of which 7 were prospective nonrandomized studies. In total, 351 patients (68.6%) were treated with FOLFIRINOX alone (8 studies) and 161 patients (31.4%) were treated with FOLFIRINOX and radiotherapy (7 studies). The pooled estimated median OS was 21.6 months (range 18.4-34.0 months) for FOLFIRINOX alone and 22.4 months (range 11.0-37.7 months) for FOLFIRINOX with radiotherapy. The pooled resection rate was similar (71.9% vs. 63.1%, p = 0.43) and the pooled R0 resection rate was higher for FOLFIRINOX with radiotherapy (88.0% vs. 97.6%, p = 0.045). Other pathological outcomes (ypN0, pathologic complete response, perineural invasion) were comparable.
CONCLUSIONS
In this meta-analysis, radiotherapy following neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX was associated with an improved R0 resection rate as compared with neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX alone, but a difference in survival could not be demonstrated. Randomized trials are needed to determine the added value of radiotherapy following neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX in patients with (B)PRC.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Fluorouracil; Humans; Irinotecan; Leucovorin; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Oxaliplatin; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 34142290
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-021-10276-8