-
Pharmaceutics Apr 2023Treatment of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is difficult and current guidelines are based mainly on expert opinion and non-randomized controlled trials. Recently, there... (Review)
Review
Treatment of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is difficult and current guidelines are based mainly on expert opinion and non-randomized controlled trials. Recently, there have been some targeted therapies using uniform primary endpoints for outcome assessment. Recommendations can be provided on selecting biologics and targeted synthetic small molecules for refractory HS by comparing the efficacy and safety of these medications. Databases including ClinicalTrial.gov, Cochrane Library, and PubMed were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for moderate-to-severe HS were eligible. We performed random-effect network meta-analysis and ranking probability. The primary outcome was Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) at 12-16 weeks. Secondary outcome included Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) 0/1, mean change of DLQI from baseline, and adverse effects. A total of 12 RCTs involving 2915 patients were identified. Adalimumab, bimekizumab, secukinumab 300 mg q4w and secukinumab 300 mg q2w showed superiority to placebo in HiSCR at weeks 12 to 16. In addition, there was no significant difference between bimekizumab and adalimumab as measured by HiSCR (RR = 1.00; 95% CI: 0.66-1.52) and DLQI 0/1 (RR = 2.40, 95% CI: 0.88-6.50). In terms of ranking probability for achieving HiSCR at 12-16 weeks, adalimumab ranked first, followed by bimekizumab, secukinumab 300 mg q4w, and secukinumab 300 mg q2w. All biologics and small molecules did not differ in the development of adverse effects compared to placebo. Adalimumab, bimekizumab, secukinumab 300 mg q4w and secukinumab 300 mg q2w represent four regimens that produce better outcomes than placebo without increased risk of adverse events. Adalimumab and bimekizumab exhibited best HiSCR and DLQI 0/1 between weeks 12-16.
PubMed: 37242593
DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics15051351 -
Blood Advances Jun 2020Imatinib, the first tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) for the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), improves overall survival (OS), but the introduction of newer... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Imatinib, the first tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) for the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), improves overall survival (OS), but the introduction of newer TKIs requires the definition of the optimal first-line TKI for newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) chronic-phase (CP) CML. This systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compares the efficacy and safety of imatinib vs second-generation (dasatinib, nilotinib, bosutinib) and third-generation TKIs (ponatinib) in adults with newly diagnosed Ph+ CP CML, concentrating on OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and hematological and nonhematological adverse events. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method. Seven RCTs published between 1990 and 2019 (involving 3262 participants) satisfied the eligibility criteria. Two RCTs (imatinib vs nilotinib and imatinib vs dasatinib) found no difference in 5-year OS or PFS. Second- and third-generation TKIs improved 3-month major molecular responses (relative risk [RR], 4.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.20-8.32) and other efficacy outcomes, decreased accelerated/blastic-phase transformations (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26-0.74), but were associated with more cases of thrombocytopenia (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.20-2.05), cardiovascular events (RR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.49-4.33), and pancreatic (RR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.32-3.96) and hepatic effects (RR, 3.51; 95% CI 1.55-7.92). GRADE showed that the certainty of the evidence ranged from high to moderate. This study shows that, in comparison with imatinib, second- and third-generation TKIs improve clinical responses, but the safer toxicity profile of imatinib may make it a better option for patients with comorbidities.
Topics: Adult; Antineoplastic Agents; Dasatinib; Humans; Imatinib Mesylate; Leukemia, Myelogenous, Chronic, BCR-ABL Positive; Leukemia, Myeloid, Chronic-Phase
PubMed: 32559295
DOI: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2019001329 -
Cancer Treatment Reviews Mar 2020HER2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer (BC) comprises all the four PAM50 molecular subtypes. Among these, the HER2-Enriched (HER2-E) appear to be associated with higher... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
HER2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer (BC) comprises all the four PAM50 molecular subtypes. Among these, the HER2-Enriched (HER2-E) appear to be associated with higher pathological complete response (pCR) rates following anti-HER2-based regimens. Here, we present a meta-analysis to validate the association of the HER2-E subtype with pCR following anti-HER2-based neoadjuvant treatments with or without chemotherapy (CT).
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed in February 2019. The primary objective was to compare the association between HER2-E subtype (versus others) and pCR. Selected secondary objectives were to compare the association between 1) HER2-E subtype and pCR in CT-free studies, 2) HER2-E subtype within hormone receptor (HR)-negative and HR+ disease and 3) HR-negative disease (versus HR+) and pCR in all patients and within HER2-E subtype. A random-effect model was applied. The Higgins' I was used to quantify heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies were included, 5 of which tested CT-free regimens. HER2-E subtype was significantly associated with pCR in all patients (odds ratio [OR] = 3.50, p < 0.001, I = 33%), in HR+ (OR = 3.61, p < 0.001, I = 1%) and HR-negative tumors (OR = 2.28, p = 0.01, I = 47%). In CT-free studies, HER2-E subtype was associated with pCR in all patients (OR = 5.52, p < 0.001, I = 0%) and in HR + disease (OR = 4.08, p = 0.001, I = 0%). HR-negative status was significantly associated with pCR compared to HR + status in all patients (OR = 2.41, p < 0.001, I = 30%) and within the HER2-E subtype (OR = 1.76, p < 0.001, I = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS
The HER2-E biomarker identifies patients with a higher likelihood of achieving a pCR following neoadjuvant anti-HER2-based therapy beyond HR status and CT use. Future trial designs to escalate or de-escalate systemic therapy in HER2+ disease should consider this genomic biomarker.
Topics: Biomarkers, Tumor; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Neoplasm Staging; Receptor, ErbB-2; Remission Induction
PubMed: 32000054
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2020.101965 -
Nutrients Jul 2022Although the effects of caffeine supplementation on combat sports performance have been extensively investigated, there is currently no consensus regarding its ergogenic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Acute Effects of Caffeine Supplementation on Physical Performance, Physiological Responses, Perceived Exertion, and Technical-Tactical Skills in Combat Sports: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Although the effects of caffeine supplementation on combat sports performance have been extensively investigated, there is currently no consensus regarding its ergogenic benefits.This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to summarize the studies investigating the effects of caffeine supplementation on different aspects of performance in combat sports and to quantitatively analyze the results of these studies to better understand the ergogenic effect of caffeine on combat sports outcomes. A systematic search for randomized placebo-controlled studies investigating the effects of caffeine supplementation on combat sports' performance was performed through Scopus, Pubmed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases up to 18 April 2022. Random-effects meta-analyses of standardized mean differences (Hedge's g) were performed to analyze the data. Twenty-six studies of good and excellent methodological quality (based on the Pedro scale) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis results revealed caffeine has a small but evident effect size (ES) on handgrip strength (ES = 0.28; 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.52; = 0.02), and total number of throws during the special judo fitness test (SJFT) (ES = 0.42; 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.78; = 0.02). Regarding the physiological responses, caffeine increased blood lactate concentration ([La]) in anaerobic exercise (ES = 1.23; 95% CI: 0.29 to 2.18; = 0.01) and simulated combat (ES = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.34 to 1.47; = 0.002). For Heart Rate (HR), caffeine increased HR final (ES = 0.31; 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.52; = 0.003), and HR 1min (ES = 0.20; 95% CI 0.004 to 0.40; = 0.045). However, caffeine had no impact on the countermovement jump height, the SJFT index, the judogi strength-endurance test, the number and duration of offensive actions, HR at the end of the fight, and the rating of perceived exertion. Caffeine supplementation may be ergogenic for a range of combat sports aspects involving isometric strength, anaerobic power, reaction time, and anaerobic metabolism. However, supplementation effects might be ineffective under certain circumstances, indicating supplementation needs to take into account the performance metric in question prior to creating a dosing protocol.
Topics: Athletic Performance; Caffeine; Dietary Supplements; Hand Strength; Performance-Enhancing Substances; Physical Exertion; Physical Functional Performance
PubMed: 35889953
DOI: 10.3390/nu14142996 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Dec 2021To evaluate pathological complete response as a surrogate endpoint for disease-free survival and overall survival in regulatory neoadjuvant trials of early stage breast... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Evaluation of pathological complete response as surrogate endpoint in neoadjuvant randomised clinical trials of early stage breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate pathological complete response as a surrogate endpoint for disease-free survival and overall survival in regulatory neoadjuvant trials of early stage breast cancer.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, and Scopus to 1 December 2020.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION
Randomised clinical trials that tested neoadjuvant chemotherapy given alone or combined with other treatments, including anti-human epidermal growth factor 2 (anti-HER2) drugs, targeted treatments, antivascular agents, bisphosphonates, and immune checkpoint inhibitors.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Trial level associations between the surrogate endpoint pathological complete response and disease-free survival and overall survival.
METHODS
A weighted regression analysis was performed on log transformed treatment effect estimates (hazard ratio for disease-free survival and overall survival and relative risk for pathological complete response), and the coefficient of determination (R) was used to quantify the association. The secondary objective was to explore heterogeneity of results in preplanned subgroups analysis, stratifying trials according treatment type in the experimental arm, definition used for pathological complete response (breast and lymph nodes breast only), and biological features of the disease (HER2 positive or triple negative breast cancer). The surrogate threshold effect was also evaluated, indicating the minimum value of the relative risk for pathological complete response necessary to confidently predict a non-null effect on hazard ratio for disease-free survival or overall survival.
RESULTS
54 randomised clinical trials comprising a total of 32 611 patients were included in the analysis. A weak association was observed between the log(relative risk) for pathological complete response and log(hazard ratio) for both disease-free survival (R=0.14, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.29) and overall survival (R =0.08, 0.00 to 0.22). Similar results were found across all subgroups evaluated, independently of the definition used for pathological complete response, treatment type in the experimental arm, and biological features of the disease. The surrogate threshold effect was 5.19 for disease-free survival but was not estimable for overall survival. Consistent results were confirmed in three sensitivity analyses: excluding small trials (<200 patients enrolled), excluding trials with short median follow-up (<24 months), and replacing the relative risk for pathological complete response with the absolute difference of pathological complete response rates between treatment arms.
CONCLUSION
A lack of surrogacy of pathological complete response was identified at trial level for both disease-free survival and overall survival. The findings suggest that pathological complete response should not be used as primary endpoint in regulatory neoadjuvant trials of early stage breast cancer.
Topics: Biomarkers; Breast Neoplasms; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Disease-Free Survival; Female; Humans; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34933868
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2021-066381 -
BMC Gastroenterology Jun 2022There are limited comparative data for infliximab and vedolizumab in inflammatory bowel disease patients. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
There are limited comparative data for infliximab and vedolizumab in inflammatory bowel disease patients.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of infliximab and vedolizumab in adult patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis.
RESULTS
We identified six eligible Crohn's disease and seven eligible ulcerative colitis trials that randomised over 1900 participants per disease cohort to infliximab or vedolizumab. In the Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis cohorts, infliximab yielded better efficacy than vedolizumab for all analysed outcomes (CDAI-70, CDAI-100 responses, and clinical remission for Crohn's disease and clinical response and clinical remission for ulcerative colitis) during the induction phase, with non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals. In the maintenance phase, similar proportions of infliximab- or vedolizumab-treated patients achieved clinical response, clinical remission, or mucosal healing in both Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. For the safety outcomes, rates of adverse events, serious adverse events, and discontinuations due to adverse events were similar in infliximab- and vedolizumab-treated patients in both diseases. The infection rate was higher in infliximab for Crohn's disease and higher in vedolizumab when treating patients with ulcerative colitis. There was no difference between the treatments in the proportions of patients who reported serious infections in both indications.
CONCLUSIONS
Indirect comparison of infliximab and vedolizumab trials in adult patients with moderate-to severe Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis demonstrated that infliximab has better efficacy in the induction phase and comparable efficacy during the maintenance phase and overall safety profile compared to vedolizumab.
Topics: Adult; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Colitis, Ulcerative; Crohn Disease; Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Infliximab
PubMed: 35676620
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-022-02347-1 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2022The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serology... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 enable detection of past infection and may detect cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection that were missed by earlier diagnostic tests. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection may enable development of effective diagnostic and management pathways, inform public health management decisions and understanding of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the accuracy of antibody tests, firstly, to determine if a person presenting in the community, or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection according to time after onset of infection and, secondly, to determine if a person has previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included: timing of test, test method, SARS-CoV-2 antigen used, test brand, and reference standard for non-SARS-CoV-2 cases.
SEARCH METHODS
The COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) was searched on 30 September 2020. We included additional publications from the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) 'COVID-19: Living map of the evidence' and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health 'NIPH systematic and living map on COVID-19 evidence'. We did not apply language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced serology tests, targeting IgG, IgM, IgA alone, or in combination. Studies must have provided data for sensitivity, that could be allocated to a predefined time period after onset of symptoms, or after a positive RT-PCR test. Small studies with fewer than 25 SARS-CoV-2 infection cases were excluded. We included any reference standard to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR), clinical diagnostic criteria, and pre-pandemic samples).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We use standard screening procedures with three reviewers. Quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and numeric study results were extracted independently by two people. Other study characteristics were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and, for meta-analysis, we fitted univariate random-effects logistic regression models for sensitivity by eligible time period and for specificity by reference standard group. Heterogeneity was investigated by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and summarised results for tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples and that met a modification of UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) target performance criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 178 separate studies (described in 177 study reports, with 45 as pre-prints) providing 527 test evaluations. The studies included 64,688 samples including 25,724 from people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2; most compared the accuracy of two or more assays (102/178, 57%). Participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were most commonly hospital inpatients (78/178, 44%), and pre-pandemic samples were used by 45% (81/178) to estimate specificity. Over two-thirds of studies recruited participants based on known SARS-CoV-2 infection status (123/178, 69%). All studies were conducted prior to the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and present data for naturally acquired antibody responses. Seventy-nine percent (141/178) of studies reported sensitivity by week after symptom onset and 66% (117/178) for convalescent phase infection. Studies evaluated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (165/527; 31%), chemiluminescent assays (CLIA) (167/527; 32%) or lateral flow assays (LFA) (188/527; 36%). Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (172, 97%); application and interpretation of the index test (35, 20%); weaknesses in the reference standard (38, 21%); and issues related to participant flow and timing (148, 82%). We judged that there were high concerns about the applicability of the evidence related to participants in 170 (96%) studies, and about the applicability of the reference standard in 162 (91%) studies. Average sensitivities for current SARS-CoV-2 infection increased by week after onset for all target antibodies. Average sensitivity for the combination of either IgG or IgM was 41.1% in week one (95% CI 38.1 to 44.2; 103 evaluations; 3881 samples, 1593 cases), 74.9% in week two (95% CI 72.4 to 77.3; 96 evaluations, 3948 samples, 2904 cases) and 88.0% by week three after onset of symptoms (95% CI 86.3 to 89.5; 103 evaluations, 2929 samples, 2571 cases). Average sensitivity during the convalescent phase of infection (up to a maximum of 100 days since onset of symptoms, where reported) was 89.8% for IgG (95% CI 88.5 to 90.9; 253 evaluations, 16,846 samples, 14,183 cases), 92.9% for IgG or IgM combined (95% CI 91.0 to 94.4; 108 evaluations, 3571 samples, 3206 cases) and 94.3% for total antibodies (95% CI 92.8 to 95.5; 58 evaluations, 7063 samples, 6652 cases). Average sensitivities for IgM alone followed a similar pattern but were of a lower test accuracy in every time slot. Average specificities were consistently high and precise, particularly for pre-pandemic samples which provide the least biased estimates of specificity (ranging from 98.6% for IgM to 99.8% for total antibodies). Subgroup analyses suggested small differences in sensitivity and specificity by test technology however heterogeneity in study results, timing of sample collection, and smaller sample numbers in some groups made comparisons difficult. For IgG, CLIAs were the most sensitive (convalescent-phase infection) and specific (pre-pandemic samples) compared to both ELISAs and LFAs (P < 0.001 for differences across test methods). The antigen(s) used (whether from the Spike-protein or nucleocapsid) appeared to have some effect on average sensitivity in the first weeks after onset but there was no clear evidence of an effect during convalescent-phase infection. Investigations of test performance by brand showed considerable variation in sensitivity between tests, and in results between studies evaluating the same test. For tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples, the lower bound of the 95% CI for sensitivity was 90% or more for only a small number of tests (IgG, n = 5; IgG or IgM, n = 1; total antibodies, n = 4). More test brands met the MHRA minimum criteria for specificity of 98% or above (IgG, n = 16; IgG or IgM, n = 5; total antibodies, n = 7). Seven assays met the specified criteria for both sensitivity and specificity. In a low-prevalence (2%) setting, where antibody testing is used to diagnose COVID-19 in people with symptoms but who have had a negative PCR test, we would anticipate that 1 (1 to 2) case would be missed and 8 (5 to 15) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG or IgM testing in week three after onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a seroprevalence survey, where prevalence of prior infection is 50%, we would anticipate that 51 (46 to 58) cases would be missed and 6 (5 to 7) would be falsely positive in 1000 people having IgG tests during the convalescent phase (21 to 100 days post-symptom onset or post-positive PCR) of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Some antibody tests could be a useful diagnostic tool for those in whom molecular- or antigen-based tests have failed to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including in those with ongoing symptoms of acute infection (from week three onwards) or those presenting with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19. However, antibody tests have an increasing likelihood of detecting an immune response to infection as time since onset of infection progresses and have demonstrated adequate performance for detection of prior infection for sero-epidemiological purposes. The applicability of results for detection of vaccination-induced antibodies is uncertain.
Topics: Humans; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Antibodies, Viral; Immunoglobulin G; COVID-19 Vaccines; Pandemics; Seroepidemiologic Studies; Immunoglobulin M
PubMed: 36394900
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013652.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2021Depressive disorders are the most common psychiatric comorbidity in people with epilepsy, affecting around one-third, with a significant negative impact on quality of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Depressive disorders are the most common psychiatric comorbidity in people with epilepsy, affecting around one-third, with a significant negative impact on quality of life. There is concern that people may not be receiving appropriate treatment for their depression because of uncertainty regarding which antidepressant or class works best, and the perceived risk of exacerbating seizures. This review aimed to address these issues, and inform clinical practice and future research. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 12, 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants in treating depressive symptoms and the effect on seizure recurrence, in people with epilepsy and depression.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched CRS Web, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov (February 2021). We searched the World Health Organization Clinical Trials Registry in October 2019, but were unable to update it because it was inaccessible. There were no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs), investigating children or adults with epilepsy, who were treated with an antidepressant and compared to placebo, comparative antidepressant, psychotherapy, or no treatment for depressive symptoms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcomes were changes in depression scores (proportion with a greater than 50% improvement, mean difference, and proportion who achieved complete remission) and change in seizure frequency (mean difference, proportion with a seizure recurrence, or episode of status epilepticus). Secondary outcomes included the number of participants who withdrew from the study and reasons for withdrawal, quality of life, cognitive functioning, and adverse events. Two review authors independently extracted data for each included study. We then cross-checked the data extraction. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool for RCTs, and the ROBINS-I for NRSIs. We presented binary outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) or 99% CIs for specific adverse events. We presented continuous outcomes as standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs, and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 studies in the review (four RCTs and six NRSIs), with 626 participants with epilepsy and depression, examining the effects of antidepressants. One RCT was a multi-centre study comparing an antidepressant with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). The other three RCTs were single-centre studies comparing an antidepressant with an active control, placebo, or no treatment. The NRSIs reported on outcomes mainly in participants with focal epilepsy before and after treatment for depression with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI); one NRSI compared SSRIs to CBT. We rated one RCT at low risk of bias, three RCTs at unclear risk of bias, and all six NRSIs at serious risk of bias. We were unable to conduct any meta-analysis of RCT data due to heterogeneity of treatment comparisons. We judged the certainty of evidence to be moderate to very low across comparisons, because single studies contributed limited outcome data, and because of risk of bias, particularly for NRSIs, which did not adjust for confounding variables. More than 50% improvement in depressive symptoms ranged from 43% to 82% in RCTs, and from 24% to 97% in NRSIs, depending on the antidepressant given. Venlafaxine improved depressive symptoms by more than 50% compared to no treatment (mean difference (MD) -7.59 (95% confidence interval (CI) -11.52 to -3.66; 1 study, 64 participants; low-certainty evidence); the results between other comparisons were inconclusive. Two studies comparing SSRIs to CBT reported inconclusive results for the proportion of participants who achieved complete remission of depressive symptoms. Seizure frequency data did not suggest an increased risk of seizures with antidepressants compared to control treatments or baseline. Two studies measured quality of life; antidepressants did not appear to improve quality of life over control. No studies reported on cognitive functioning. Two RCTs and one NRSI reported comparative data on adverse events; antidepressants did not appear to increase the severity or number of adverse events compared to controls. The NSRIs reported higher rates of withdrawals due to adverse events than lack of efficacy. Reported adverse events for antidepressants included nausea, dizziness, sedation, headache, gastrointestinal disturbance, insomnia, and sexual dysfunction. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Existing evidence on the effectiveness of antidepressants in treating depressive symptoms associated with epilepsy is still very limited. Rates of response to antidepressants were highly variable. There is low certainty evidence from one small RCT (64 participants) that venlafaxine may improve depressive symptoms more than no treatment; this evidence is limited to treatment between 8 and 16 weeks, and does not inform longer-term effects. Moderate to low evidence suggests neither an increase nor exacerbation of seizures with SSRIs. There are no available comparative data to inform the choice of antidepressant drug or classes of drug for efficacy or safety for treating people with epilepsy and depression. RCTs of antidepressants utilising interventions from other treatment classes besides SSRIs, in large samples of patients with epilepsy and depression, are needed to better inform treatment policy. Future studies should assess interventions across a longer treatment duration to account for delayed onset of action, sustainability of treatment responses, and to provide a better understanding of the impact on seizure control.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Antidepressive Agents; Bias; Child; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Depression; Epilepsy; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Young Adult
PubMed: 33860531
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010682.pub3 -
Pharmacological Research Apr 2023Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR)-modified T lymphocytes represent one of the most innovative and promising approaches to treating hematologic malignancies. CAR-T cell... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR)-modified T lymphocytes represent one of the most innovative and promising approaches to treating hematologic malignancies. CAR-T cell therapy is currently being used for the treatment of relapsed/refractory (r/r) B-cell malignancies including Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia, Large B-Cell Lymphoma, Follicular Lymphoma, Multiple Myeloma and Mantle Cell Lymphoma. Despite the unprecedented clinical success, one of the major issues of the approved CAR-T cell therapy - tisagenlecleucel, axicabtagene, lisocabtagene, idecabtagene, ciltacabtagene and brexucabtagene - is the uncertainty about its persistence which in turn could lead to weak or no response to therapy with malignancy recurrence. Here we show that the prognosis of patients who do not respond to CAR-T cell therapy is still an unmet medical need. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis collecting individual data on Duration of Response from at least 12-month follow-up studies. We found that the pooled prevalence of relapse within the first 12 months after CAR-T infusion was 61% (95% CI, 43%-78%); moreover, one year after the infusion, the analysis highlighted a pooled prevalence of relapse of 24% (95% CI, 11%-42%). Our results suggest that identifying potential predictive biomarkers of response to CAR-T therapy, especially for patients affected by the advanced stage of blood malignancies, could lead to stratification of the eligible population to that therapy, recognizing which patients will benefit and which will not, helping regulators to make decision in that way.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; T-Lymphocytes; Hematologic Neoplasms; Chronic Disease; Multiple Myeloma; Recurrence; Cell- and Tissue-Based Therapy
PubMed: 36963592
DOI: 10.1016/j.phrs.2023.106742 -
Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology Oct 2023The aim of this review was to describe the changes in the microbiota of patients with Behçet's disease (BD) and the mechanisms involved in the relationship between the... (Review)
Review
The aim of this review was to describe the changes in the microbiota of patients with Behçet's disease (BD) and the mechanisms involved in the relationship between the microbiome and immunity in BD. A systematic search for relevant articles was made on PubMed and the Cochrane Library database using the following terms: "microbiota AND Behçet's disease" or "microbiome AND Behçet's disease". Sixteen articles were included in a qualitative synthesis. This systematic review on the microbiome and Behçet's disease underlines the presence of gut dysbiosis in BD patients. This dysbiosis is marked by (i) a decrease in butyrate-producing bacteria, which could affect T cell differentiation and epigenetic regulation of immune-related genes, (ii) a modification of tryptophan-metabolising bacteria, which could be linked to dysregulated IL-22 secretion, and (iii) a decrease in bacteria known to have anti-inflammatory properties. Regarding oral microbiota, this review underlines the possible role of Streptococcus sanguinis through molecular mimicry and NETosis. Clinical studies of BD have shown that (i) need for dentistry is associated with a more severe course in BD, and (ii) antibiotic-supplemented mouthwash reduces pain and ulcers. Fecal transplantation of BD patients' microbiota into mouse models led to decreased SCFA production, neutrophil activation, and Th1/Th17 responses.Recipient mice showed exacerbated experimental autoimmune uveitis (EAU) and experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE). In Herpes Virus Simplex-1 (HSV-1) infected mice mimicking BD, administration of butyrateproducing bacteria improved symptoms and immune variables. The microbiome may thus be involved in BD through immunity regulation and epigenetic modifications.
Topics: Humans; Animals; Mice; Behcet Syndrome; Dysbiosis; Epigenesis, Genetic; Uveitis; Microbiota; Bacteria
PubMed: 37382445
DOI: 10.55563/clinexprheumatol/zbt4gx