-
BMJ Medicine 2023To explore the associations between adiposity indices, assessed at or after a diagnosis of prostate cancer, and mortality.
OBJECTIVE
To explore the associations between adiposity indices, assessed at or after a diagnosis of prostate cancer, and mortality.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed and Embase, from inception to 16 November 2022.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Cohort studies or randomised controlled trials of men with a diagnosis of prostate cancer that investigated the associations between adiposity (body mass index, waist and hip circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, and subcutaneous and visceral adipose tissue) after diagnosis and mortality outcomes. A modified version of the risk of bias for nutrition observational studies tool was used to assess risk of bias.
RESULTS
79 studies were identified that investigated adiposity indices after a diagnosis of prostate cancer in relation to mortality. No randomised controlled trials were found. A non-linear dose-response meta-analysis indicated a J shaped association between body mass index and all cause mortality (33 910 men, 11 095 deaths, 17 studies). The highest rate of all cause mortality was found at the lowest and upper range of the distribution: 11-23% higher rate for a body mass index of 17-21 and 4-43% higher rate for a body mass index of 30-40. The association between body mass index and mortality specific to prostate cancer was flat until body mass index reached 26-27, and then increased linearly by 8-66% for a body mass index of 30-40 (33 137 men, 2947 deaths, 13 studies), but the 95% confidence intervals were wide. These associations did not differ in most predefined subgroups by study design, number of deaths, anthropometric assessment, follow-up time, geographical location, prostate cancer risk group, and adjustment variables. No associations were found in meta-analyses between 10 cm increases in waist circumference and all cause mortality or mortality specific to prostate cancer, but only three studies were available. The few studies with data on change in weight, waist-to-hip ratio, and subcutaneous and visceral adipose tissue reported conflicting results.
CONCLUSIONS
This review suggests that patients with prostate cancer might benefit from maintaining a healthy weight and avoiding obesity. Future studies should investigate adiposity across different stages of cancer survivorship and use various parameters for distribution of adipose tissue.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
Open Science Framework https://osf.io/qp3c4.
PubMed: 37841967
DOI: 10.1136/bmjmed-2022-000339 -
Journal of Contemporary Brachytherapy Aug 2021High-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy as primary therapy (monotherapy) is a standard National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) endorsed treatment option for patients...
PURPOSE
High-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy as primary therapy (monotherapy) is a standard National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) endorsed treatment option for patients with localized prostate cancer. Thus far, most data are limited to single-institution experiences. Accordingly, we sought to systematically review rates of biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS) and toxicity associated with fractionated HDR monotherapy.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic review was performed using PubMed and Embase databases for relevant articles published between January 1999 and December 2019, according to preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Included studies were limited to fractionated HDR monotherapy publications in full manuscript form with at least 5-year median follow-up, at least 80 patients included, and adequate reporting of bRFS and toxicity data. Meta-analyses were performed with random-effect modeling. Extent of heterogeneity between studies was determined using and Cochran's Q tests.
RESULTS
Seven unique studies were identified, including 2,123 patients. NCCN low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients comprised 40%, 40%, and 20% of patients, respectively. Median follow-up at the study group level was 74 months (range, 60-131 months). The 5-year bRFS rate was 95% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 93-96%), and after adjusting to control for publication bias, it was 96% (95% CI: 94-99%). Estimated adjusted late grade ≥ 3 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity rates were 2% (95% CI: 1-4%) and 0.3% (95% CI: 0-1.1%), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Fractionated HDR monotherapy is associated with high rates of disease control and low rates of toxicity. Future studies are needed to better define the value of this treatment modality relative to other options.
PubMed: 34484350
DOI: 10.5114/jcb.2021.108590 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2023The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different third-line treatment regimens for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) through a...
BACKGROUND
The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different third-line treatment regimens for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) through a comprehensive analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA). Additionally, the study aims to provide guidance on selecting appropriate third-line systemic treatment regimens for patients with mCRC.
METHODS
We conducted a search of the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from January 1, 2005, to May 20, 2023, to include phase II/III randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of third-line treatments for mCRC. The primary outcome assessed in the NMA was median overall survival (mOS), and other outcomes included median progression-free survival (mPFS), disease control rate (DCR), and grade 3 or higher adverse events (≥3AEs).
RESULTS
Ultimately, nine phase II/III RCTs involving five treatment regimens were included in this study. Trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) plus bevacizumab (hazard ratio [HR] 0.41, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.32-0.52) was found to be the most effective treatment for mOS compared to best supportive care (BSC). TAS-102 plus bevacizumab also significantly improved mPFS compared to BSC (HR 0.20, 95% CrI 0.16-0.25). In terms of adverse events (AEs), TAS-102 (RR 0.52, 95% CrI 0.35-0.74) had a lower incidence of ≥3AEs compared to fruquintinib, but fruquintinib (RR 1.79, 95% CrI 1.10-3.11) showed better improvement in DCR than TAS-102. Subgroup analysis using the Bayesian surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) ranked the regimens based on the OS benefit. The results indicated that TAS-102 plus bevacizumab ranked first across age, gender, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), and time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.
CONCLUSION
TAS-102, fruquintinib, TAS-102 plus bevacizumab, the regorafenib standard dose regimen (regorafenib), and the regorafenib dose-escalation regimen (regorafenib 80+) all demonstrated improved OS and PFS compared to BSC in mCRC patients. However, TAS-102 plus bevacizumab may be the optimal choice for third-line treatment in mCRC patients.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php, CRD42023434929.
PubMed: 37810981
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1269203 -
Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis Oct 2022Arterial and venous thrombotic events in COVID-19 cause significant morbidity and mortality among patients. Although international guidelines agree on the need for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Efficacy and safety of heparin full-dose anticoagulation in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients: a meta-analysis of multicenter randomized controlled trials.
Arterial and venous thrombotic events in COVID-19 cause significant morbidity and mortality among patients. Although international guidelines agree on the need for anticoagulation, it is unclear whether full-dose heparin anticoagulation confers additional benefits over prophylactic-dose anticoagulation. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of heparin full-dose anticoagulation in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients. We searched Pubmed/Medline, EMBASE, Clinicaltrials.gov, medRxiv.org and Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials dated up to April 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing full-dose heparin anticoagulation to prophylactic-dose anticoagulation or standard treatment in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients were included in our pooled analysis. The primary endpoint was the rate of major thrombotic events and the co-primary endpoint was the rate of major bleeding events. We identified 4 studies, all of them multicenter, randomizing 2926 patients. Major thrombotic events were 23/1524 (1.5%) in full-dose heparin anticoagulation versus 57/1402 (4.0%) in prophylactic-dose [relative risk (RR) 0.39; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25-0.62; p˂0.01; I = 0%]. Clinical relevant bleeding events occurred in 1.7% (26/1524) among patients treated with heparin full anticoagulation dose compared to 1.1% (15/1403) in prophylactic-dose group (RR 1.60; 95% CI 0.85-3.03; p = 0.15; I = 20%). Mortality was 6.6% (101/1524) versus 8.6% (121/1402) (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.33-1.19; p = 0.15). In this meta-analysis of high quality multicenter randomized trials, full-dose anticoagulation with heparin was associated with lower rate of major thrombotic events without differences in bleeding risk and mortality in hospitalized non critically ill COVID-19 patients.Study registration PROSPERO, review no. CRD42022301874.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Hemorrhage; Heparin; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thrombosis; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35922578
DOI: 10.1007/s11239-022-02681-x -
Cureus Jun 2023There has been increased use of cefepime due to concerns about the nephrotoxic effects of the combined use of vancomycin and Zosyn. However, cefepime is associated with... (Review)
Review
There has been increased use of cefepime due to concerns about the nephrotoxic effects of the combined use of vancomycin and Zosyn. However, cefepime is associated with neurotoxicity. We conducted a systematic review using online data to explore the trend of cefepime-induced neurotoxicity over the last 10 years. Forty-six articles met our inclusion criteria, including 73 cases of cefepime-induced neurotoxicity. We noticed a steady increase in the reports of cefepime-induced neurotoxicity, from one case in 2013 to 11 cases in 2022. Individuals aged 65 and older accounted for most cefepime-induced neurotoxicity cases (52%). The top three indications for cefepime administration included bone and joint infections (25%), urinary tract infections (22.7%), and pneumonia (22.7%). Most patients with renal impairment have never had a renal adjustment of their cefepime dosage (either 2 g 12 hours a day or 2 g eight hours a day). Most cases of cefepime-induced neurotoxicity occurred between days two and five (n=29, 71%), while most resolution occurred between days one and five (n=29, 85%). While cefepime continues to be a popularly used and effective antibiotic against gram-negative bacteria like , its dosage needs to be adjusted in patients with renal impairment to avoid neurotoxicity.
PubMed: 37503476
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.40980 -
International Journal of Antimicrobial... Sep 2023Pyrazinamide (PZA) is a first-line antituberculosis drug with potent sterilising activity. Variability in drug exposure may translate into suboptimal treatment... (Review)
Review
Pyrazinamide (PZA) is a first-line antituberculosis drug with potent sterilising activity. Variability in drug exposure may translate into suboptimal treatment responses. This systematic review, conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, aimed to evaluate the concentration-effect relationship. In vitro/in vivo studies had to contain information on the infection model, PZA dose and concentration, and microbiological outcome. Human studies had to present information on PZA dose, measures of drug exposure and maximum concentration, and microbiological response parameter or overall treatment outcome. A total of 34 studies were assessed, including in vitro (n = 2), in vivo (n = 3) and clinical studies (n = 29). Intracellular and extracellular models demonstrated a direct correlation between PZA dose of 15-50 mg/kg/day and reduction in bacterial count between 0.50-27.7 log CFU/mL. Consistent with this, higher PZA doses (>150 mg/kg) were associated with a greater reduction in bacterial burden in BALB/c mice models. Human pharmacokinetic studies displayed a linear positive correlation between PZA dose (i.e. 21.4-35.7 mg/kg/day) and drug exposure (AUC range 220.6-514.5 mg·h/L). Additionally, human studies confirmed a dose-effect relationship, with an increased 2-month sputum culture conversion rate at AUC/MIC targets of 8.4-11.3 with higher exposure/susceptibility ratios leading to greater efficacy. A 5-fold variability in AUC was observed at PZA dose of 25 mg/kg. A direct concentration-effect relationship and increased treatment efficacy with higher PZA exposure to susceptibility ratios was observed. Taking into account variability in drug exposure and treatment response, further studies on dose optimisation are justified.
Topics: Animals; Mice; Humans; Pyrazinamide; Mycobacterium tuberculosis; Tuberculosis; Antitubercular Agents; Mice, Inbred BALB C; Microbial Sensitivity Tests
PubMed: 37419292
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2023.106914 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2021Asthma is a chronic disease in which inflammation of the airways causes symptomatic wheezing, coughing and difficult breathing. Macrolides are antibiotics with... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Asthma is a chronic disease in which inflammation of the airways causes symptomatic wheezing, coughing and difficult breathing. Macrolides are antibiotics with antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory activities that have been explored for the long-term control of asthma symptoms.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of macrolides compared with placebo for managing chronic asthma.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register up to March 2021. We also manually searched bibliographies of previously published reviews and conference proceedings and contacted study authors. We included records published in any language in the search.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) involving both children and adults with asthma treated with macrolides versus placebo for four or more weeks. Primary outcomes were exacerbation requiring hospitalisation, severe exacerbations (exacerbations requiring emergency department (ED) visits or systemic steroids, or both), symptom scales, asthma control questionnaire (ACQ, score from 0 totally controlled, to 6 severely uncontrolled), Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ, with score from 1 to 7 with higher scores indicating better QoL), rescue medication puffs per day, morning and evening peak expiratory flow (PEF; litres per minutes), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV; litres), bronchial hyperresponsiveness, and oral corticosteroid dose. Secondary outcomes were adverse events (including mortality), withdrawal, blood eosinophils, sputum eosinophils, eosinophil cationic protein (ECP) in serum, and ECP in sputum.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently examined all records identified in the searches then reviewed the full text of all potentially relevant articles before extracting data in duplicate from all included studies. As per protocol, we used a fixed-effect model. We conducted a sensitivity analysis for analyses with high heterogeneity (I greater than 30%). GRADE was used to assess the certainty of the body of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria, randomising 1973 participants to receive macrolide or placebo for at least four weeks. Most of the included studies reported data from adults (mean age 21 to 61 years) with persistent or severe asthma, while four studies included children. All participants were recruited in outpatient settings. Inclusion criteria, interventions and outcomes were highly variable. The evidence suggests macrolides probably deliver a moderately sized reduction in exacerbations requiring hospitalisations compared to placebo (odds ratio (OR) 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 1.12; studies = 2, participants = 529; moderate-certainty evidence). Macrolides probably reduce exacerbations requiring ED visits and/or treatment with systemic steroids (rate ratio (RaR) 0.65, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.80; studies = 4, participants = 640; moderate-certainty evidence). Macrolides may reduce symptoms (as measured on symptom scales) (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.46, 95% CI -0.81 to -0.11; studies = 4, participants = 136 ; very low-certainty evidence). Macrolides may result in a little improvement in ACQ (SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.03; studies = 5, participants = 773; low-certainty evidence). Macrolides may have little to no effect on AQLQ (mean difference (MD) 0.24, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.35; studies = 6, participants = 802; very low-certainty evidence). For both the ACQ and the AQLQ the suggested effect of macrolides versus placebo did not reach a minimal clinically important difference (MCID, 0.5 for ACQ and AQLQ) (ACQ: low-certainty evidence; AQLQ: very low-certainty evidence). Due to high heterogeneity (I > 30%), we conducted sensitivity analyses on the above results, which reduced the size of the suggested effects by reducing the weighting on the large, high quality studies. Macrolides may result in a small effect compared to placebo in reducing need for rescue medication (MD -0.43 puffs/day, 95% CI -0.81 to -0.04; studies = 4, participants = 314; low-certainty evidence). Macrolides may increase FEV, but the effect is almost certainly below a level discernible to patients (MD 0.04 L, 95% CI 0 to 0.08; studies = 10, participants = 1046; low-certainty evidence). It was not possible to pool outcomes for non-specific bronchial hyperresponsiveness or lowest tolerated oral corticosteroid dose (in people requiring oral corticosteroids at baseline). There was no evidence of a difference in severe adverse events (including mortality), although less than half of the studies reported the outcome (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.31; studies = 8, participants = 854; low-certainty evidence). Reporting of specific adverse effects was too inconsistent across studies for a meaningful analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Existing evidence suggests an effect of macrolides compared with placebo on the rate of exacerbations requiring hospitalisation. Macrolides probably reduce severe exacerbations (requiring ED visit and/or treatment with systemic steroids) and may reduce symptoms. However, we cannot rule out the possibility of other benefits or harms because the evidence is of very low quality due to heterogeneity among patients and interventions, imprecision and reporting biases. The results were mostly driven by a well-designed, well powered RCT, indicating that azithromycin may reduce exacerbation rate and improve symptom scores in severe asthma. The review highlights the need for researchers to report outcomes accurately and according to standard definitions. Macrolides can reduce exacerbation rate in people with severe asthma. Future trials could evaluate if this effect is sustained across all the severe asthma phenotypes, the comparison with newer biological drugs, whether effects persist or wane after treatment cessation and whether effects are associated with infection biomarkers.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Asthma; Disease Progression; Humans; Macrolides; Middle Aged; Quality of Life; Young Adult
PubMed: 34807989
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002997.pub5 -
BMC Pharmacology & Toxicology Apr 2023Standard doses of second-generation H-antihistamines (sgAHs) as first-line treatment are not always effective in treating chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), and hence... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Standard doses of second-generation H-antihistamines (sgAHs) as first-line treatment are not always effective in treating chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), and hence an increase in the dose of sgAHs is recommended. However, literature evaluating the efficacy and safety of this treatment remains inconclusive, highlighting the need for a systematic review and meta-analysis. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of high-dose sgAHs compared with standard-dose sgAHs in treating CSU.
METHODS
A systematic literature search of double-blind, randomized controlled trials (RCT) utilizing multiple doses of sgAHs was performed by searching the electronic databases Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Cochrane databases, and Web of Science. Bibliographies were also manually searched. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for assessing risk of bias was used to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias independently. The response rate, the number of adverse events, somnolence, and withdrawal due to adverse events were extracted from each article. The data were combined and analyzed to quantify the safety and efficacy of the treatment. RevMan (V5.3) software was used for data synthesis.
RESULTS
A total of 13 studies were identified, seven of which met the eligibility criteria for the meta-analysis. Our pooled meta-analyses showed that high-dose sgAHs was associated with a significantly higher response rate than standard-dose (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.26; P = 0.02). Conversely, high doses of sgAHs were associated with significantly higher somnolence rates than standard dose (RD 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09; P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in adverse events or withdrawal due to adverse events between standard- and high-dose treatments.
CONCLUSIONS
Our analyses showed that a high dose of sgAHs (up to two times the standard dose) might be more effective than a standard dose in CSU treatment. High-dose and standard-dose sgAHs showed similar adverse events, except for somnolence, where incidence was found to be dose-dependent in some studies. However, given the limited number of studies, our meta-analysis results should be interpreted with caution.
Topics: Humans; Sleepiness; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Chronic Urticaria; Histamine H1 Antagonists, Non-Sedating; Histamine Antagonists
PubMed: 37024900
DOI: 10.1186/s40360-023-00665-y -
Journal of Pain Research 2023Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) is a neuromodulation technique for neuropathic pain. However, the effects of PRF on zoster-related trigeminal neuralgia (TN) remain unclear.... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) is a neuromodulation technique for neuropathic pain. However, the effects of PRF on zoster-related trigeminal neuralgia (TN) remain unclear. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to investigate the efficacy and safety of PRF in the management of zoster-related TN.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang for randomized controlled trials from their inception to August 2022. The primary clinical outcomes included pain intensity and adverse events. Secondary clinical outcomes included pain remission rate, trigeminal postherpetic neuralgia (TPHN) incidence, rescue analgesic dose, sleep quality, and quality of life (QoL).
RESULTS
Eight studies with 788 participants were included for final analysis. PRF group exhibited lower pain scores (week 1: MD -2.10, 95% CI -3.28 to -0.93, =0.0005; week 4: MD -1.56, 95% CI -2.60 to -0.51, P=0.003; week 12: MD -1.52, 95% CI -2.68 to -0.35, =0.01), lower risk of TPHN incidence (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.81, =0.02) and better sleep quality (week 4: MD -2.52, 95% CI -3.28 to -1.77, P<0.01; week 12: MD -2.25, 95% CI -2.90 to -1.60, <0.01) than control group. Besides, pain remission rate (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.26, =0.31) and adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.27, =0.74) were comparable in both groups.
CONCLUSION
PRF is an effective and safe treatment and it yields better effects in pain relief, improvement of sleep quality, and prevention of developing TPHN. Although PRF provides a comparable pain remission rate with the control, it is still a preferred and alternative treatment for relieving zoster-related facial pain.
PubMed: 36756203
DOI: 10.2147/JPR.S396209 -
Chinese Neurosurgical Journal Sep 2022TTFields is a novel treating modality of glioblastoma (GBM) which can significantly prolong the overall survival (OS) of newly diagnosed or recurrent glioblastoma. Some... (Review)
Review
TTFields is a novel treating modality of glioblastoma (GBM) which can significantly prolong the overall survival (OS) of newly diagnosed or recurrent glioblastoma. Some researchers have revealed that a variety of factors can affect the efficacy of TTFields. So, we review the available literature about the influencing factors on efficacy of TTFields and then choose two experimentally supported factors: the dose of dexamethasone and compliance of TTFields to perform a meta-analysis. The PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library are searched. Five articles are identified between 2014 and 2017. Three articles are about the compliance of TTFields. Two articles are about the dose of dexamethasone. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) is used as an assessment tool to evaluate the methodological quality of all included trials. The scale's range varies from 0 to 9 stars. According to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, articles are graded in six items to evaluate the risk of bias. Two reviewers rate the studies independently and the final decision is reached by consensus.Our data shows that the median OS is conspicuously longer in the TTFields group in which the dose of dexamethasone is ≤ 4.1 mg, WMD = 9.23 [95% CI 5.69-12.78]; P < 0.05). And the patients whose compliance of TTFields treatment ≥ 75% (≥ 18 h per day) have a significant lower overall survival risk than the patients whose compliance of TTFields treatment < 75% (HR = 0.57 [95% CI 0.46-0.70]; P < 0.00001).TTFields is a safe and efficient novel treatment modality. The dose of dexamethasone ≤ 4.1 mg of TTFields treatment and the compliance of TTFields treatment ≥ 75%, ≥ 18 h per day are beneficial to the prognosis of the glioblastoma patients.
PubMed: 36056409
DOI: 10.1186/s41016-022-00294-0