-
Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and... 2023Lichen Planus (LP) is a dermatological disorder characterized by violaceous papules that affect the cutaneous region, nails, scalp, and mucous membranes. Current... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Lichen Planus (LP) is a dermatological disorder characterized by violaceous papules that affect the cutaneous region, nails, scalp, and mucous membranes. Current molecular and clinical studies point to the Janus Kinase-signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway as a potential effector of LP pathology.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review summarizes the current reported literature outcomes for patients receiving JAK inhibitors to treat LP.
METHODS
MEDLINE and Embase were searched on 16 October, 2022, and 15 original articles were included, with 56 LP patients.
RESULTS
(mean age: 54.5 years, range: 26-81 years, male: 26.8%). The treatment outcomes were included for the following JAK inhibitors: tofacitinib ( = 30), baricitinib ( = 16), ruxolitinib ( = 12), and upadacitinib ( = 2). Patient outcomes were classified into complete resolution, partial resolution, and no resolution. Patients achieving complete resolution represented 25% ( = 4/16) in the baricitinib group, 10% ( = 3/30) in the tofacitinib group, 16.7% ( = 2/12) in the ruxolitinib group, and 100% (2/2) in the upadacitinib group. Partial resolution patients represented 31.3% ( = 5/16) of baricitinib patients, 60% ( = 18/30) of tofacitinib patients, and 83% ( = 10/12) of ruxolitinib patients. 43.8% ( = 7/16) of baricitinib patients and 10% ( = 9/30) of tofacitinib patients had no resolution of lesions.
CONCLUSION
This review also highlights the significance of utilizing a uniform outcome measure for LP, as it aids in reporting more generalizable results, reduces reporting bias, and ultimately lead to improved clinical outcomes for LP patients.
Topics: Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Pyrazoles; Lichen Planus
PubMed: 36815857
DOI: 10.1177/12034754231156100 -
Clinical Pharmacokinetics Apr 2023Ruxolitinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting the Janus kinase (JAK) and signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) pathways. Ruxolitinib is used to...
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Ruxolitinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting the Janus kinase (JAK) and signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) pathways. Ruxolitinib is used to treat myelofibrosis, polycythemia vera and steroid-refractory graft-versus-host disease in the setting of allogeneic stem-cell transplantation. This review describes the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of ruxolitinib.
METHODS
Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and web of Science were searched from the time of database inception to march 15, 2021 and was repeated on November 16, 2021. Articles not written in English, animal or in vitro studies, letters to the editor, case reports, where ruxolitinib was not used for hematological diseases or not available as full text were excluded.
RESULTS
Ruxolitinib is well absorbed, has 95% bio-availability, and is bound to albumin for 97%. Ruxolitinib pharmacokinetics can be described with a two-compartment model and linear elimination. Volume of distribution differs between men and women, likely related to bodyweight differences. Metabolism is mainly hepatic via CYP3A4 and can be altered by CYP3A4 inducers and inhibitors. The major metabolites of ruxolitinib are pharmacologically active. The main route of elimination of ruxolitinib metabolites is renal. Liver and renal dysfunction affect some of the pharmacokinetic variables and require dose reductions. Model-informed precision dosing might be a way to further optimize and individualize ruxolitinib treatment, but is not yet advised for routine care due to lack of information on target concentrations.
CONCLUSION
Further research is needed to explain the interindividual variability of the ruxolitinib pharmacokinetic variables and to optimize individual treatment.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Female; Janus Kinases; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Pyrazoles; Nitriles
PubMed: 37000342
DOI: 10.1007/s40262-023-01225-7 -
Efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib in steroid-refractory graft-versus-host disease: A meta-analysis.Frontiers in Immunology 2022Ruxolitinib is an important treatment for steroid refractory graft-versus-host disease (SR-GVHD). Therefore, we reported the updated results of a systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Ruxolitinib is an important treatment for steroid refractory graft-versus-host disease (SR-GVHD). Therefore, we reported the updated results of a systematic review and meta-analysis of ruxolitinib as treatment for SR-GVHD. In addition, we wanted to compare the efficacy and safety between children and adults with SR-GVHD. Overall response rate (ORR) after ruxolitinib treatment was chosen as the primary end point. Complete response rate (CRR), infection, myelosuppression, and overall survival (OS) were chosen as secondary end points. A total of 37 studies were included in this meta-analysis, and 1,580 patients were enrolled. ORR at any time after ruxolitinib treatment was 0.77 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68-0.84] and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.74-0.81), respectively, for SR-aGVHD and SR-cGVHD. CRR at any time after ruxolitinib treatment was 0.49 (95% CI: 0.40-0.57) and 0.15 (95% CI: 0.10-0.23), respectively, for SR-aGVHD and SR-cGVHD. The ORRs at any time after treatment was highest in mouth SR-cGVHD, followed by skin, gut, joints and fascia, liver, eyes, esophagus, and lung SR-cGVHD. The incidence rate of infections after ruxolitinib treatment was 0.61 (95% CI: 0.45-0.76) and 0.47 (95% CI: 0.31-0.63), respectively, for SR-aGVHD and SR-cGVHD. The incidence rates of overall (grades I-IV) and severe (grades III-IV) cytopenia were 53.2% (95% CI: 16.0%-90.4%) and 31.0% (95% CI: 0.0-100.0%), respectively, for SR-aGVHD, and were 28.8% (95% CI:13.0%-44.6%) and 10.4% (95% CI: 0.0-27.9%), respectively, for SR-cGVHD. The probability rate of OS at 6 months after treatment was 63.9% (95% CI: 52.5%-75.2%) for SR-aGVHD. The probability rates of OS at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after treatment were 95% (95% CI: 79.5%-100.0%), 78.7% (95% CI: 67.2%-90.1%), and 75.3% (95% CI: 68.0%-82.7%), respectively, for SR-cGVHD. The ORR, CRR, infection events, and myelosuppression were all comparable between children and adults with SR-GVHD. In summary, this study suggests that ruxolitinib is an effective and safe treatment for SR-GVHD, and both children and adults with SR-GVHD could benefit from ruxolitinib treatment.
Topics: Adult; Child; Graft vs Host Disease; Humans; Nitriles; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines; Steroids
PubMed: 35990629
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.954268 -
Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases Feb 2022The most recent overall survival (OS) and adverse event (AE) data have not been compared for the three guideline-recommended high-risk non-metastatic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Overall survival and adverse events after treatment with darolutamide vs. apalutamide vs. enzalutamide for high-risk non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The most recent overall survival (OS) and adverse event (AE) data have not been compared for the three guideline-recommended high-risk non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) treatment alternatives.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis focusing on OS and AE according to the most recent apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide reports. We systematically examined and compared apalutamide vs. enzalutamide vs. darolutamide efficacy and toxicity, relative to ADT according to PRISMA. We relied on PubMed search for most recent reports addressing prospective randomized trials with proven predefined OS benefit, relative to ADT: SPARTAN, PROSPER, and ARAMIS. OS represented the primary outcome and AEs represented secondary outcomes.
RESULTS
Overall, data originated from 4117 observations made within the three trials that were analyzed. Regarding OS benefit relative to ADT, darolutamide ranked first, followed by enzalutamide and apalutamide, in that order. In the subgroup of PSA-doubling time (PSA-DT) ≤ 6 months patients, enzalutamide ranked first, followed by darolutamide and apalutamide in that order. Conversely, in the subgroup of PSA-DT 6-10 months patients, darolutamide ranked first, followed by apalutamide and enzalutamide, in that order. Regarding grade 3+ AEs, darolutamide was most favorable, followed by enzalutamide and apalutamide, in that order.
CONCLUSION
The current network meta-analysis suggests the highest OS efficacy and lowest grade 3+ toxicity for darolutamide. However, in the PSA-DT ≤ 6 months subgroup, the highest efficacy was recorded for enzalutamide. It is noteworthy that study design, study population, and follow-up duration represent some of the potentially critical differences that distinguish between the three studies and remained statistically unaccounted for using the network meta-analysis methodology. Those differences should be strongly considered in the interpretation of the current and any network meta-analyses.
Topics: Benzamides; Humans; Male; Network Meta-Analysis; Nitriles; Phenylthiohydantoin; Prospective Studies; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant; Pyrazoles; Thiohydantoins; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34054128
DOI: 10.1038/s41391-021-00395-4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2023Since the approval of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, angiogenesis inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the treatment landscape for advanced renal cell carcinoma... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Since the approval of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, angiogenesis inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the treatment landscape for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has changed fundamentally. Today, combined therapies from different drug categories have a firm place in a complex first-line therapy. Due to the large number of drugs available, it is necessary to identify the most effective therapies, whilst considering their side effects and impact on quality of life (QoL).
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate and compare the benefits and harms of first-line therapies for adults with advanced RCC, and to produce a clinically relevant ranking of therapies. Secondary objectives were to maintain the currency of the evidence by conducting continuous update searches, using a living systematic review approach, and to incorporate data from clinical study reports (CSRs).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings and relevant trial registries up until 9 February 2022. We searched several data platforms to identify CSRs.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating at least one targeted therapy or immunotherapy for first-line treatment of adults with advanced RCC. We excluded trials evaluating only interleukin-2 versus interferon-alpha as well as trials with an adjuvant treatment setting. We also excluded trials with adults who received prior systemic anticancer therapy if more than 10% of participants were previously treated, or if data for untreated participants were not separately extractable.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
All necessary review steps (i.e. screening and study selection, data extraction, risk of bias and certainty assessments) were conducted independently by at least two review authors. Our outcomes were overall survival (OS), QoL, serious adverse events (SAEs), progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs), the number of participants who discontinued study treatment due to an AE, and the time to initiation of first subsequent therapy. Where possible, analyses were conducted for the different risk groups (favourable, intermediate, poor) according to the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Score (IMDC) or the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) criteria. Our main comparator was sunitinib (SUN). A hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) lower than 1.0 is in favour of the experimental arm.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 36 RCTs and 15,177 participants (11,061 males and 4116 females). Risk of bias was predominantly judged as being 'high' or 'some concerns' across most trials and outcomes. This was mainly due to a lack of information about the randomisation process, the blinding of outcome assessors, and methods for outcome measurements and analyses. Additionally, study protocols and statistical analysis plans were rarely available. Here we present the results for our primary outcomes OS, QoL, and SAEs, and for all risk groups combined for contemporary treatments: pembrolizumab + axitinib (PEM+AXI), avelumab + axitinib (AVE+AXI), nivolumab + cabozantinib (NIV+CAB), lenvatinib + pembrolizumab (LEN+PEM), nivolumab + ipilimumab (NIV+IPI), CAB, and pazopanib (PAZ). Results per risk group and results for our secondary outcomes are reported in the summary of findings tables and in the full text of this review. The evidence on other treatments and comparisons can also be found in the full text. Overall survival (OS) Across risk groups, PEM+AXI (HR 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 1.07, moderate certainty) and NIV+IPI (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.00, moderate certainty) probably improve OS, compared to SUN, respectively. LEN+PEM may improve OS (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.03, low certainty), compared to SUN. There is probably little or no difference in OS between PAZ and SUN (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.32, moderate certainty), and we are uncertain whether CAB improves OS when compared to SUN (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.64, very low certainty). The median survival is 28 months when treated with SUN. Survival may improve to 43 months with LEN+PEM, and probably improves to: 41 months with NIV+IPI, 39 months with PEM+AXI, and 31 months with PAZ. We are uncertain whether survival improves to 34 months with CAB. Comparison data were not available for AVE+AXI and NIV+CAB. Quality of life (QoL) One RCT measured QoL using FACIT-F (score range 0 to 52; higher scores mean better QoL) and reported that the mean post-score was 9.00 points higher (9.86 lower to 27.86 higher, very low certainty) with PAZ than with SUN. Comparison data were not available for PEM+AXI, AVE+AXI, NIV+CAB, LEN+PEM, NIV+IPI, and CAB. Serious adverse events (SAEs) Across risk groups, PEM+AXI probably increases slightly the risk for SAEs (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.85, moderate certainty) compared to SUN. LEN+PEM (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.19, moderate certainty) and NIV+IPI (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.97, moderate certainty) probably increase the risk for SAEs, compared to SUN, respectively. There is probably little or no difference in the risk for SAEs between PAZ and SUN (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.31, moderate certainty). We are uncertain whether CAB reduces or increases the risk for SAEs (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.43, very low certainty) when compared to SUN. People have a mean risk of 40% for experiencing SAEs when treated with SUN. The risk increases probably to: 61% with LEN+PEM, 57% with NIV+IPI, and 52% with PEM+AXI. It probably remains at 40% with PAZ. We are uncertain whether the risk reduces to 37% with CAB. Comparison data were not available for AVE+AXI and NIV+CAB.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Findings concerning the main treatments of interest comes from direct evidence of one trial only, thus results should be interpreted with caution. More trials are needed where these interventions and combinations are compared head-to-head, rather than just to SUN. Moreover, assessing the effect of immunotherapies and targeted therapies on different subgroups is essential and studies should focus on assessing and reporting relevant subgroup data. The evidence in this review mostly applies to advanced clear cell RCC.
Topics: Male; Female; Adult; Humans; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Axitinib; Nivolumab; Network Meta-Analysis; Sunitinib
PubMed: 37146227
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013798.pub2 -
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Jan 2021Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) have been approved for use in various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. With five agents licensed, it was timely to summarise the...
OBJECTIVES
Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) have been approved for use in various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. With five agents licensed, it was timely to summarise the current understanding of JAKi use based on a systematic literature review (SLR) on efficacy and safety.
METHODS
Existing data were evaluated by a steering committee and subsequently reviewed by a 29 person expert committee leading to the formulation of a consensus statement that may assist the clinicians, patients and other stakeholders once the decision is made to commence a JAKi. The committee included patients, rheumatologists, a gastroenterologist, a haematologist, a dermatologist, an infectious disease specialist and a health professional. The SLR informed the Task Force on controlled and open clinical trials, registry data, phase 4 trials and meta-analyses. In addition, approval of new compounds by, and warnings from regulators that were issued after the end of the SLR search date were taken into consideration.
RESULTS
The Task Force agreed on and developed four general principles and a total of 26 points for consideration which were grouped into six areas addressing indications, treatment dose and comedication, contraindications, pretreatment screening and risks, laboratory and clinical follow-up examinations, and adverse events. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendations were determined based on the SLR and levels of agreement were voted on for every point, reaching a range between 8.8 and 9.9 on a 10-point scale.
CONCLUSION
The consensus provides an assessment of evidence for efficacy and safety of an important therapeutic class with guidance on issues of practical management.
Topics: Adamantane; Advisory Committees; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Azetidines; Cytokines; Drug Therapy, Combination; Europe; Heterocyclic Compounds, 3-Ring; Humans; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Niacinamide; Piperidines; Psoriasis; Purines; Pyrazoles; Pyridines; Pyrimidines; Rheumatology; Spondylarthropathies; Spondylitis, Ankylosing; Sulfonamides; Triazoles
PubMed: 33158881
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218398 -
Acta Dermato-venereologica Jan 2023The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of treatment with Janus kinase inhibitors for alopecia areata, measured by change in Severity of Alopecia... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of treatment with Janus kinase inhibitors for alopecia areata, measured by change in Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score. A systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was performed using Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane library. All studies investigating the efficacy of treatments for alopecia areata were included. Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients with alopecia areata achieving 30%, 50%, 75%, 90% and 100% improvement in SALT score after treatment with a Janus kinase inhibitor. A meta-analysis was performed including all randomized controlled trials investigating Janus kinase inhibitors. A total of 37 studies matched the inclusion criteria and were included. Meta-analysis was performed based on 5 randomized studies. Regarding patients with alopecia areata defined as ≥ 50% scalp hair loss, baricitinib 4 mg once daily demonstrated the highest efficacy. However, among patients with alopecia areata defined as a SALT score ≥ 50, oral deuruxolitinib 12 mg twice daily demonstrated the highest efficacy. Deuruxolitinib and baricitinib appear to be promising drugs for the treatment of alopecia areata. However, the response depends on the dosage of the drug. More randomized trials, with identical inclusion criteria and dose and duration of treatment, are required to confirm these findings.
Topics: Humans; Alopecia Areata; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Alopecia; Pyrazoles
PubMed: 36695751
DOI: 10.2340/actadv.v103.4536 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jan 2024Atopic dermatitis is a chronic relapsing inflammatory skin condition. One of the most common skin disorders in children, atopic dermatitis typically manifests before the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Atopic dermatitis is a chronic relapsing inflammatory skin condition. One of the most common skin disorders in children, atopic dermatitis typically manifests before the age of 5 years, but it can develop at any age. Atopic dermatitis is characterised by dry, inflamed skin accompanied by intense itchiness (pruritus).
OBJECTIVES
To appraise the clinical and cost effectiveness of abrocitinib, tralokinumab and upadacitinib within their marketing authorisations as alternative therapies for treating moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis compared to systemic immunosuppressants (first-line ciclosporin A or second-line dupilumab and baricitinib).
DATA SOURCES
Studies were identified from an existing systematic review (search date 2019) and update searches of electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) to November 2021, from bibliographies of retrieved studies, clinical trial registers and evidence provided by the sponsoring companies of the treatments under review.
METHODS
A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness literature was carried out and a network meta-analysis undertaken for adults and adolescents at different steps of the treatment pathway. The primary outcome of interest was a combined response of Eczema Area and Severity Index 50 + Dermatology Life Quality Index ≥ 4; where this was consistently unavailable for a step in the pathway, an analysis of Eczema Area and Severity Index 75 was conducted. A de novo economic model was developed to assess cost effectiveness from the perspective of the National Health Service in England. The model structure was informed through systematic review of the economic literature and by consulting clinical experts. Effectiveness data were obtained from the network meta-analysis. Costs and utilities were obtained from the evidence provided by sponsoring companies and standard UK sources.
RESULTS
Network meta-analyses indicate that abrocitinib 200 mg and upadacitinib 30 mg may be more effective, and tralokinumab may be less effective than dupilumab and baricitinib as second-line systemic therapies. Abrocitinib 100 mg and upadacitinib 15 mg have a more similar effectiveness to dupilumab. Upadacitinib 30 and 15 mg are likely to be more effective than ciclosporin A as a first-line therapy. Upadacitinib 15 mg, abrocitinib 200 and 100 mg may be more effective than dupilumab in adolescents. The cost effectiveness of abrocitinib and upadacitinib for both doses is dependent on the subgroup of interest. Tralokinumab can be considered cost-effective as a second-line systemic therapy owing to greater cost savings per quality-adjusted life-year lost.
CONCLUSIONS
The primary strength of the analysis of the three new drugs compared with current practice for each of the subpopulations is the consistent approach to the assessment of clinical and cost effectiveness. However, the conclusions are limited by the high uncertainty around the clinical effectiveness and lack of data for the primary outcome for comparisons with baricitinib and for the adolescent and adult first-line populations.
FUTURE WORK AND LIMITATIONS
The most significant limitation that Eczema Area and Severity Index 50 + Dermatology Life Quality Index ≥ 4 could not be obtained for the adolescent and adult first-line systemic treatment populations is due to a paucity of data for dupilumab and ciclosporin A. A comparison of the new drugs against one another in addition to current practice would be beneficial to provide a robust view on which treatments are the most cost-effective.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021266219.
FUNDING
This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: 135138) and is published in full in ; Vol. 28, No. 4. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Topics: Child; Adult; Adolescent; Humans; Child, Preschool; Dermatitis, Atopic; Cyclosporine; State Medicine; Treatment Outcome; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Eczema; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Purines; Heterocyclic Compounds, 3-Ring; Sulfonamides; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines; Azetidines
PubMed: 38343072
DOI: 10.3310/LEXB9006 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2020Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a common life-shortening genetic condition caused by a variant in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) protein. A class... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a common life-shortening genetic condition caused by a variant in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) protein. A class II CFTR variant F508del (found in up to 90% of people with CF (pwCF)) is the commonest CF-causing variant. The faulty protein is degraded before reaching the cell membrane, where it needs to be to effect transepithelial salt transport. The F508del variant lacks meaningful CFTR function and corrective therapy could benefit many pwCF. Therapies in this review include single correctors and any combination of correctors and potentiators.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of CFTR correctors (with or without potentiators) on clinically important benefits and harms in pwCF of any age with class II CFTR mutations (most commonly F508del).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, reference lists of relevant articles and online trials registries. Most recent search: 14 October 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (parallel design) comparing CFTR correctors to control in pwCF with class II mutations.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and evidence quality (GRADE); we contacted investigators for additional data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 19 RCTs (2959 participants), lasting between 1 day and 24 weeks; an extension of two lumacaftor-ivacaftor studies provided additional 96-week safety data (1029 participants). We assessed eight monotherapy RCTs (344 participants) (4PBA, CPX, lumacaftor, cavosonstat and FDL169), six dual-therapy RCTs (1840 participants) (lumacaftor-ivacaftor or tezacaftor-ivacaftor) and five triple-therapy RCTs (775 participants) (elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor or VX-659-tezacaftor-ivacaftor); below we report only the data from elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor combination which proceeded to Phase 3 trials. In 14 RCTs participants had F508del/F508del genotypes, in three RCTs F508del/minimal function (MF) genotypes and in two RCTs both genotypes. Risk of bias judgements varied across different comparisons. Results from 11 RCTs may not be applicable to all pwCF due to age limits (e.g. adults only) or non-standard design (converting from monotherapy to combination therapy). Monotherapy Investigators reported no deaths or clinically-relevant improvements in quality of life (QoL). There was insufficient evidence to determine any important effects on lung function. No placebo-controlled monotherapy RCT demonstrated differences in mild, moderate or severe adverse effects (AEs); the clinical relevance of these events is difficult to assess with their variety and small number of participants (all F508del/F508del). Dual therapy Investigators reported no deaths (moderate- to high-quality evidence). QoL scores (respiratory domain) favoured both lumacaftor-ivacaftor and tezacaftor-ivacaftor therapy compared to placebo at all time points. At six months lumacaftor 600 mg or 400 mg (both once daily) plus ivacaftor improved Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire (CFQ) scores slightly compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) 2.62 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 4.59); 1061 participants; high-quality evidence). A similar effect was observed for twice-daily lumacaftor (200 mg) plus ivacaftor (250 mg), but with low-quality evidence (MD 2.50 points (95% CI 0.10 to 5.10)). The mean increase in CFQ scores with twice-daily tezacaftor (100 mg) and ivacaftor (150 mg) was approximately five points (95% CI 3.20 to 7.00; 504 participants; moderate-quality evidence). At six months, the relative change in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV) % predicted improved with combination therapies compared to placebo by: 5.21% with once-daily lumacaftor-ivacaftor (95% CI 3.61% to 6.80%; 504 participants; high-quality evidence); 2.40% with twice-daily lumacaftor-ivacaftor (95% CI 0.40% to 4.40%; 204 participants; low-quality evidence); and 6.80% with tezacaftor-ivacaftor (95% CI 5.30 to 8.30%; 520 participants; moderate-quality evidence). More pwCF reported early transient breathlessness with lumacaftor-ivacaftor, odds ratio 2.05 (99% CI 1.10 to 3.83; 739 participants; high-quality evidence). Over 120 weeks (initial study period and follow-up) systolic blood pressure rose by 5.1 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure by 4.1 mmHg with twice-daily 400 mg lumacaftor-ivacaftor (80 participants; high-quality evidence). The tezacaftor-ivacaftor RCTs did not report these adverse effects. Pulmonary exacerbation rates decreased in pwCF receiving additional therapies to ivacaftor compared to placebo: lumacaftor 600 mg hazard ratio (HR) 0.70 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.87; 739 participants); lumacaftor 400 mg, HR 0.61 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.76; 740 participants); and tezacaftor, HR 0.64 (95% CI, 0.46 to 0.89; 506 participants) (moderate-quality evidence). Triple therapy Three RCTs of elexacaftor to tezacaftor-ivacaftor in pwCF (aged 12 years and older with either one or two F508del variants) reported no deaths (high-quality evidence). All other evidence was graded as moderate quality. In 403 participants with F508del/minimal function (MF) elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor improved QoL respiratory scores (MD 20.2 points (95% CI 16.2 to 24.2)) and absolute change in FEV (MD 14.3% predicted (95% CI 12.7 to 15.8)) compared to placebo at 24 weeks. At four weeks in 107 F508del/F508del participants, elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor improved QoL respiratory scores (17.4 points (95% CI 11.9 to 22.9)) and absolute change in FEV (MD 10.0% predicted (95% CI 7.5 to 12.5)) compared to tezacaftor-ivacaftor. There was probably little or no difference in the number or severity of AEs between elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor and placebo or control (moderate-quality evidence). In 403 F508del/F508del participants, there was a longer time to protocol-defined pulmonary exacerbation with elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor over 24 weeks (moderate-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence that corrector monotherapy has clinically important effects in pwCF with F508del/F508del. Both dual therapies (lumacaftor-ivacaftor, tezacaftor-ivacaftor) result in similar improvements in QoL and respiratory function with lower pulmonary exacerbation rates. Lumacaftor-ivacaftor was associated with an increase in early transient shortness of breath and longer-term increases in blood pressure (not observed for tezacaftor-ivacaftor). Tezacaftor-ivacaftor has a better safety profile, although data are lacking in children under 12 years. In this population, lumacaftor-ivacaftor had an important impact on respiratory function with no apparent immediate safety concerns; but this should be balanced against the blood pressure increase and shortness of breath seen in longer-term adult data when considering lumacaftor-ivacaftor. There is high-quality evidence of clinical efficacy with probably little or no difference in AEs for triple (elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor) therapy in pwCF with one or two F508del variants aged 12 years or older. Further RCTs are required in children (under 12 years) and those with more severe respiratory function.
Topics: Adult; Aminophenols; Aminopyridines; Benzodioxoles; Bias; Child; Cystic Fibrosis; Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Conductance Regulator; Drug Combinations; Humans; Indoles; Mutation; Phenylbutyrates; Pyrazoles; Pyridines; Quality of Life; Quinolines; Quinolones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33331662
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010966.pub3 -
Neurological Sciences : Official... Oct 2023The study aims to increase understanding of edaravone's efficacy and safety as an amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) treatment and provide significant insights... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
The study aims to increase understanding of edaravone's efficacy and safety as an amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) treatment and provide significant insights regarding this field's future research.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive search of the Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus databases for randomized controlled trials and observational studies up until September 2022. We evaluated the studies' quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the National Institutes of Health tool.
RESULTS
We included 11 studies with 2845 ALS patients. We found that edaravone improved the survival rate at 18, 24, and 30 months (risk ratio (RR) = 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.02 to 1.24], P = 0.02), (RR = 1.22, 95% CI [1.06 to 1.41], P = 0.007), and (RR = 1.17, 95% CI [1.01 to 1.34], P = 0.03), respectively. However, the administration of edaravone did not result in any significant difference in adverse effects or efficacy outcomes between the two groups, as indicated by a P value greater than 0.05.
CONCLUSION
Edaravone improves survival rates of ALS patients at 18, 24, and 30 months with no adverse effects. However, edaravone does not affect functional outcomes. In order to ensure the validity of our findings and assess the results in accordance with the disease stage, it is essential to carry out additional prospective, rigorous, and high-quality clinical trials. The current study offers preliminary indications regarding the effectiveness and safety of edaravone. However, further comprehensive research is required to establish the generalizability and sustainability of the findings.
Topics: United States; Humans; Edaravone; Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 37249667
DOI: 10.1007/s10072-023-06869-8