-
Blood Advances Jan 2020Ruxolitinib is a recommended second-line treatment for the prevention of thrombosis in patients with polycythemia vera who become resistant or intolerant to hydroxyurea;... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Ruxolitinib is a recommended second-line treatment for the prevention of thrombosis in patients with polycythemia vera who become resistant or intolerant to hydroxyurea; however, evidence regarding its efficacy in terms of thrombosis reduction is uncertain. We searched Medline, Embase, and archives of abstracts from the European Hematology Association and the American Society of Hematology annual congresses from 2014 onward for randomized controlled trials comparing the treatment vs best available therapy (BAT). Our search retrieved 80 records; after screening of abstracts and full text, the total was reduced to 16. Evidence came from 4 randomized controlled trials, including 663 patients (1057 patients per year). We estimated a thrombosis risk ratio of 0.56 for ruxolitinib BAT, corresponding to an incidence of 3.09% and 5.51% patients per year, respectively. The number of thrombotic events reported with ruxolitinib was consistently lower than that with BAT in our sample, but, globally, the difference did not reach significance (P = .098). Hard evidence in favor of ruxolitinib is lacking; a clinical trial on selected patients at high risk of thrombosis would be warranted, but its feasibility is questionable.
Topics: Humans; Nitriles; Odds Ratio; Polycythemia Vera; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thrombosis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31985808
DOI: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2019001158 -
BMJ Open Aug 2020The optimum systemic therapies for advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) of favourable, intermediate and poor risk have not been established. We aimed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
What is the optimum systemic treatment for advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma of favourable, intermediate and poor risk, respectively? A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
PURPOSE
The optimum systemic therapies for advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) of favourable, intermediate and poor risk have not been established. We aimed to compare and rank the effects associated with systemic therapies in the first-line setting.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Cochrane databases, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomised controlled trials (RCT) published up to February 2020 of all available treatments for advanced/metastatic RCC. Analysis was done on a Bayesian framework.
RESULTS
15 unique RCTs including 8995 patients were identified. For advanced/metastatic RCC of favourable risk, avelumab plus axitinib was associated with a significantly higher improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) than sunitinib (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.96). For intermediate-risk patients, cabozantinib, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, pembrolizumab plus axitinib and avelumab plus axitinib were associated with significantly higher improvement in PFS than sunitinib (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.97; HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.80; HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.83, respectively); pembrolizumab plus axitinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab were associated with significantly higher improvement in overall survival (OS) than sunitinib (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.81; HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.87, respectively). For poor-risk patients, nivolumab plus ipilimumab and pembrolizumab plus axitinib were associated with significantly higher improvement in PFS than sunitinib (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.76; HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.82, respectively); nivolumab plus ipilimumab and pembrolizumab plus axitinib were significantly more efficacious for OS than sunitinib (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.883; HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.80, respectively). For OS, there were 81% and 78% probabilities that pembrolizumab plus axitinib was the best option for intermediate-risk and poor-risk patients, respectively.
CONCLUSION
Avelumab plus axitinib might be the optimum treatment for advanced/metastatic RCC of favourable risk. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib might be the optimum treatment for intermediate-risk and poor-risk patients.
Topics: Axitinib; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Network Meta-Analysis; Sunitinib
PubMed: 32859659
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034626 -
BMC Pulmonary Medicine Dec 2019Pulmonary veno-occlusive disease (PVOD) is a rare condition with poor prognosis, and lung transplantation is recommended as the only curative therapy. The role of...
BACKGROUND
Pulmonary veno-occlusive disease (PVOD) is a rare condition with poor prognosis, and lung transplantation is recommended as the only curative therapy. The role of pulmonary arterial hypertension targeted therapy in PVOD remains controversial, and long-term effects of targeted therapy have been rarely reported. This study aims to retrospectively evaluate the role of targeted therapy in PVOD patients and the long-term outcome.
METHODS
PVOD patients with good responses to targeted therapies were analyzed, and data pre- and post- targeted therapies were compared. An overview of the effects of targeted therapies on PVOD patients was also conducted.
RESULTS
Five genetically or histologically confirmed PVOD patients received targeted therapies and showed good responses. Their mean pulmonary arterial pressure by right heart catheterization was 62.0 ± 11.7 mmHg. Two receiving monotherapy got stabilized, and three receiving sequential combination therapy got improved, cardiac function and exercise capacity significantly improved after treatments. No pulmonary edema occurred. The mean time from the first targeted therapy to the last follow up was 39.3 months, and the longest was 9 years. A systematic review regarding the effects of targeted therapies on PVOD patients indicated majorities of patients got hemodynamics or 6-min walk distance improved, and 26.7% patients developed pulmonary edema. The interval from targeted drugs use to death ranged from 71 min to over 4 years.
CONCLUSIONS
Cautious use of targeted therapy could safely and effectively improve or stabilize hemodynamics and exercise capacity of some patients without any complications. PVOD patients could live longer than expected.
Topics: Acetamides; Adult; Anticoagulants; Antihypertensive Agents; Cardiac Catheterization; Disease Progression; Diuretics; Drug Therapy, Combination; Echocardiography, Doppler; Endothelin Receptor Antagonists; Enzyme Activators; Exercise Tolerance; Female; Humans; Male; Natriuretic Peptide, Brain; Peptide Fragments; Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitors; Prostaglandins; Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension; Pulmonary Diffusing Capacity; Pulmonary Edema; Pulmonary Veno-Occlusive Disease; Pyrazines; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines; Retrospective Studies; Walk Test
PubMed: 31856792
DOI: 10.1186/s12890-019-1031-3 -
RMD Open Apr 2020To compare improvement in pain and physical function for patients treated with baricitinib, adalimumab, tocilizumab and tofacitinib monotherapy from randomised,... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
Comparative effectiveness of improvement in pain and physical function for baricitinib versus adalimumab, tocilizumab and tofacitinib monotherapies in rheumatoid arthritis patients who are naïve to treatment with biologic or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a...
OBJECTIVE
To compare improvement in pain and physical function for patients treated with baricitinib, adalimumab, tocilizumab and tofacitinib monotherapy from randomised, methotrexate (MTX)-controlled trials in conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs)/biologic (bDMARD)-naïve RA patients using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs).
METHODS
Data were from Phase III trials on patients receiving monotherapy baricitinib, tocilizumab, adalimumab, tofacitinib or MTX. Pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale (0-100 mm) and physical function using the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI). An MAIC based on treatment-arm matching, an MAIC with study-level matching and Bucher's method without matching compared change in outcomes between therapies. Matching variables included age, gender, baseline disease activity and baseline value of outcome measure.
RESULTS
With all methods, greater improvements were observed in pain and HAQ-DI at 6 months for baricitinib compared with adalimumab and tocilizumab (<0.05). Differences in treatment effects (TEs) favouring baricitinib for pain VAS for treatment-arm matching, study-level matching and Bucher's method, respectively, were -12, -12 and -12 for baricitinib versus adalimumab and -7, -7 and -9 for baricitinib versus tocilizumab; the difference in TEs for HAQ-DI was -0.28, -0.28 and -0.30 for adalimumab and -0.23, -0.23 and -0.26 for tocilizumab. For baricitinib versus tofacitinib, no statistically significant differences for pain improvement were observed except with one of the three methods (Bucher method) and none for HAQ-DI.
CONCLUSIONS
Results suggest greater pain reduction and improved physical function for baricitinib monotherapy compared with tocilizumab and adalimumab monotherapy. No statistically significant differences in pain reduction and improved physical function were observed between baricitinib and tofacitinib with the MAIC analyses.
Topics: Adalimumab; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Azetidines; Biological Products; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Disability Evaluation; Humans; Methotrexate; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain; Pain Measurement; Piperidines; Purines; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sulfonamides; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32371431
DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2019-001131 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2020Dementia is a worldwide concern. Its global prevalence is increasing. At present, there is no medication licensed to prevent or delay the onset of dementia. Inflammation...
BACKGROUND
Dementia is a worldwide concern. Its global prevalence is increasing. At present, there is no medication licensed to prevent or delay the onset of dementia. Inflammation has been suggested as a key factor in dementia pathogenesis. Therefore, medications with anti-inflammatory properties could be beneficial for dementia prevention.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and adverse effects of aspirin and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for the primary or secondary prevention of dementia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched ALOIS, the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group up to 9 January 2020. ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of several major healthcare databases, trial registries and grey literature sources. We ran additional searches across MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP) and six other databases to ensure that the searches were as comprehensive and up-to-date as possible. We also reviewed citations of reference lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing aspirin or other NSAIDs with placebo for the primary or secondary prevention of dementia. We included trials with cognitively healthy participants (primary prevention) or participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or cognitive complaints (secondary prevention).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We rated the strength of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four RCTs with 23,187 participants. Because of the diversity of these trials, we did not combine data to give summary estimates, but presented a narrative description of the evidence. We identified one trial (19,114 participants) comparing low-dose aspirin (100 mg once daily) to placebo. Participants were aged 70 years or older with no history of dementia, cardiovascular disease or physical disability. Interim analysis indicated no significant treatment effect and the trial was terminated slightly early after a median of 4.7 years' follow-up. There was no evidence of a difference in incidence of dementia between aspirin and placebo groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.15; high-certainty evidence). Participants allocated aspirin had higher rates of major bleeding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.60, high-certainty evidence) and slightly higher mortality (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.28; high-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in activities of daily living between groups (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.02; high-certainty evidence). We identified three trials comparing non-aspirin NSAIDs to placebo. All three trials were terminated early due to adverse events associated with NSAIDs reported in other trials. One trial (2528 participants) investigated the cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor celecoxib (200 mg twice daily) and the non-selective NSAID naproxen (220 mg twice daily) for preventing dementia in cognitively healthy older adults with a family history of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Median follow-up was 734 days. Combining both NSAID treatment arms, there was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of AD between participants allocated NSAIDs and those allocated placebo (RR 1.91, 95% CI 0.89 to 4.10; moderate-certainty evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference in rates of myocardial infarction (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.40), stroke (RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.76 to 4.37) or mortality (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.43) between treatment groups (all moderate-certainty evidence). One trial (88 participants) assessed the effectiveness of celecoxib (200 mg or 400 mg daily) in delaying cognitive decline in participants aged 40 to 81 years with mild age-related memory loss but normal memory performance scores. Mean duration of follow-up was 17.6 months in the celecoxib group and 18.1 months in the placebo group. There was no evidence of a difference between groups in test scores in any of six cognitive domains. Participants allocated celecoxib experienced more gastrointestinal adverse events than those allocated placebo (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.05 to 6.75; low-certainty evidence). One trial (1457 participants) assessed the effectiveness of the COX-2 inhibitor rofecoxib (25 mg once daily) in delaying or preventing a diagnosis of AD in participants with MCI. Median duration of study participation was 115 weeks in the rofecoxib group and 130 weeks in the placebo group. There was a higher incidence of AD in the rofecoxib than the placebo group (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.72; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between groups in cardiovascular adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.66; moderate-certainty evidence) or mortality (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.85 to 3.05; moderate-certainty evidence). Participants allocated rofecoxib had more upper gastrointestinal adverse events (RR 3.53, 95% CI 1.17 to 10.68; moderate-certainty evidence). Reported annual mean difference scores showed no evidence of a difference between groups in activities of daily living (year 1: no data available; year 2: 0.0, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.2; year 3: 0.1, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.3; year 4: 0.1, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.4; moderate-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no evidence to support the use of low-dose aspirin or other NSAIDs of any class (celecoxib, rofecoxib or naproxen) for the prevention of dementia, but there was evidence of harm. Although there were limitations in the available evidence, it seems unlikely that there is any need for further trials of low-dose aspirin for dementia prevention. If future studies of NSAIDs for dementia prevention are planned, they will need to be cognisant of the safety concerns arising from the existing studies.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Alzheimer Disease; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Aspirin; Celecoxib; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors; Dementia; Hemorrhage; Humans; Incidence; Lactones; Middle Aged; Myocardial Infarction; Naproxen; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke; Sulfones
PubMed: 32352165
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011459.pub2 -
Scientific Reports Jun 2024This review used traditional and network meta-analyses (NMA) to conduct a comprehensive study of antithrombotic therapies in children with thromboembolic disease. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This review used traditional and network meta-analyses (NMA) to conduct a comprehensive study of antithrombotic therapies in children with thromboembolic disease. We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov databases from their inception to 26 February, 2023. And we finally included 16 randomized controlled trials. In the prevention of thromboembolic events (TEs), the use of anticoagulants had a low risk of TEs (relative risk (RR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.94) and a high risk of minor bleeding (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.86) compared with no anticoagulants. In the treatment of TEs, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were not inferior to standard anticoagulation in terms of efficacy and safety outcomes. In NMA, rivaroxaban and apixaban showed the lowest risk for TEs and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. According to the overall assessment of efficacy and safety, dabigatran may be the best choice for children with thromboembolic disease. The results of our study will provide references and suggestions for clinical drug selection.
Topics: Humans; Child; Thromboembolism; Fibrinolytic Agents; Hemorrhage; Anticoagulants; Treatment Outcome; Pyrazoles; Dabigatran; Rivaroxaban; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Pyridones
PubMed: 38862574
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-64334-8 -
Rheumatology (Oxford, England) Nov 2019Fatigue is a common and debilitating symptom in patients with RA. Since 2007, fatigue has been included as one of the core outcome measures in RA. Clinical trials of...
Fatigue is a common and debilitating symptom in patients with RA. Since 2007, fatigue has been included as one of the core outcome measures in RA. Clinical trials of biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) have included fatigue as a secondary endpoint. A Cochrane review in 2016 concluded that the bDMARDs have a moderate effect on improving fatigue in RA. More recent clinical trials of the new biologic agent sarilumab and the Janus kinase inhibitors tofacitinib and baricitinib showed similar benefits. It remains unclear whether the effect of bDMARDs and tsDMARDs on fatigue is mediated by direct effects or through a reduction in inflammation. As fatigue was a secondary endpoint, many analyses did not adjust for potential confounding factors, including pain, mood and anaemia, which is a significant limitation.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Azetidines; Biological Products; Fatigue; Humans; Piperidines; Purines; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines; Pyrroles; Sulfonamides
PubMed: 31682274
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kez389 -
Journal of Comparative Effectiveness... Aug 2020To perform indirect treatment comparisons of entrectinib versus alternative fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer treatments. Relevant studies with crizotinib... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
To perform indirect treatment comparisons of entrectinib versus alternative fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer treatments. Relevant studies with crizotinib and chemotherapy as comparators of interest identified by systematic literature review were selected for matching-adjusted indirect comparison by feasibility assessment. Matching was based on known prognostic/predictive factors and scenario analyses were used for unreported confounders in comparator trials. Entrectinib yielded significantly better responses versus crizotinib in all scenarios (odds ratio [OR]: 2.43-2.74). Overall survival (hazard ratio: 0.47-0.61) and adverse event-related discontinuation (OR: 0.79-0.90) favored entrectinib. Progression-free survival was similar across treatments, except in one scenario. These results suggested improved outcomes with entrectinib versus crizotinib/chemotherapy and may help to make better informed treatment decisions.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Benzamides; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Crizotinib; Humans; Indazoles; Lung; Lung Neoplasms; Protein-Tyrosine Kinases; Proto-Oncogene Proteins
PubMed: 32648475
DOI: 10.2217/cer-2020-0063 -
Clinical Therapeutics Nov 2019Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare subtype of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma that can be either aggressive or indolent. Although MCL usually responds well to initial... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
PURPOSE
Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare subtype of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma that can be either aggressive or indolent. Although MCL usually responds well to initial treatment with chemotherapy-based regimens, the disease often relapses or becomes refractory within a few years. Acalabrutinib is a highly selective, potent, covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor with minimal off-target activity. WIthout head-to-head clinical trial data, estimation of the comparative efficacy and safety of new therapeutic entities provides valuable information for patients, clinicians, and health care payers. The objective of this analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of acalabrutinib versus other targeted therapies employed for the treatment of relapsed/refractory MCL by using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons.
METHODS
Individual data from 124 patients treated with acalabrutinib in the Phase II ACE-LY-004 trial were adjusted to match average baseline characteristics of populations from studies using alternative targeted treatment regimens for relapsed/refractory MCL (for monotherapy: ibrutinib, bortezomib, lenalidomide, and temsirolimus; for combination therapies: ibrutinib + rituximab, bendamustine + rituximab, and lenalidomide + rituximab). Patient populations were matched on age, sex, race, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, Simplified MCL International Prognostic Index score, tumor bulk, lactate dehydrogenase concentration, extranodal disease, bone marrow involvement, and number of previous treatment regimens. Outcomes assessed included overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR) rate, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events.
FINDINGS
After matching, acalabrutinib was associated with significant increases in ORR and CR rate (estimated treatment difference [95% CI]) versus ibrutinib (ORR, 9.3% [0.3-18.3]; CR, 14.9% [5.4-24.3]), bortezomib (ORR, 50.6% [40.2-61.0]; CR, 18.8% [9.1-28.5]), lenalidomide (ORR, 38.1% [27.1-49.1]; CR, 43.5% [34.8-52.3]), and temsirolimus (ORR, 40.7% [31.0-50.4]; CR, 27.1% [19.2-35.0]). PFS (hazard ratio [95% CI]) with acalabrutinib was significantly increased versus bortezomib (0.36 [0.26-0.51]), lenalidomide (0.65 [0.48-0.89]), lenalidomide + rituximab (0.57 [0.35-0.93]), and temsirolimus (0.33 [0.24-0.45]). Acalabrutinib was associated with significantly increased OS (hazard ratio) versus bortezomib (0.36 [0.22-0.61]) and temsirolimus (0.32 [0.23-0.44]). The overall safety profile of acalabrutinib was similar or better compared with the monotherapies; however, infection risk increased versus bendamustine + rituximab, and anemia increased risk versus lenalidomide + rituximab and ibrutinib + rituximab.
IMPLICATIONS
This comparison of targeted therapies used in the treatment of relapsed/refractory MCL showed that acalabrutinib has the potential to provide increased response rates, with trends for increased PFS and OS, and an improved safety profile.
Topics: Adenine; Antineoplastic Agents; Benzamides; Bortezomib; Humans; Lenalidomide; Lymphoma, Mantle-Cell; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Piperidines; Pyrazines; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines; Rituximab; Sirolimus; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31699438
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2019.09.012 -
Internal and Emergency Medicine Aug 2021Low muscle mass has been associated with worse clinical outcomes in various cancers. This work investigated whether, during tyrosine kinases inhibitors (TKIs) therapy,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Low muscle mass has been associated with worse clinical outcomes in various cancers. This work investigated whether, during tyrosine kinases inhibitors (TKIs) therapy, low muscle mass was associated with treatment toxicity and survival outcomes. A systematic literature search was performed in Pubmed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases from inception to June 2020, based on fixed inclusion and exclusion criteria. Effect sizes were estimated with hazard ratios (HR) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and heterogeneity was assessed by measuring inconsistency (I) based on the Chi squared test. A total of 24 retrospective studies were identified, enrolling patients treated with sorafenib (n = 12), sunitinib (n = 6), lenvatinib (n = 3), regorafenib (n = 2), gefitinib (n = 1), imatinib (n = 1), and pazopanib (n = 1). Thirteen studies were deemed eligible for pooled analyses. Meta-analyses found a significant effect of low muscle mass on dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) (OR 2.40, 95% CI 1.26-4.58, p = 0.008, I = 51%) in patients treated with TKI therapy. A subgroup analysis by treatment showed an association between DLT and low muscle during sorafenib or sunitinib, although not significant. A significant association between low skeletal muscle index and poorer overall survival was observed in HCC patients treated with sorafenib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.07-1.96, p = 0.02). For other TKIs, although some results showed an association between low muscle mass and worse outcomes, the number of studies for each TKI therapy was too small to reach conclusions. Skeletal muscle mass could influence the prognosis of some TKI-treated patients. This effect is demonstrated in sorafenib-treated HCC patients but remains almost unexplored in other cancer patients undergoing TKI therapy. Further prospective studies with large sample size and sufficient follow-up are needed to clarify the role of muscle mass in the metabolism of TKI-based cancer treatment, and its association with toxicity and survival.
Topics: Gefitinib; Humans; Imatinib Mesylate; Indazoles; Muscle, Skeletal; Neoplasms; Phenylurea Compounds; Prognosis; Pyrazoles; Pyridines; Pyrimidines; Quinolines; Sorafenib; Sulfonamides; Sunitinib; Survival Analysis
PubMed: 33337518
DOI: 10.1007/s11739-020-02589-5