-
PloS One 2024Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a complex cardiac condition characterized by hypercontractility of cardiac muscle leading to a dynamic obstruction of left... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Evaluating the efficacy and safety of mavacamten in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on qualitative assessment, biomarkers, and cardiac imaging.
BACKGROUND
Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a complex cardiac condition characterized by hypercontractility of cardiac muscle leading to a dynamic obstruction of left ventricular outlet tract (LVOT). Mavacamten, a first-in-class cardiac myosin inhibitor, is increasingly being studied in randomized controlled trials. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to analyse the efficacy and safety profile of Mavacamten compared to placebo in patients of HCM.
METHOD
We carried out a comprehensive search in PubMed, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov to analyze the efficacy and safety of mavacamten compared to placebo from 2010 to 2023. To calculate pooled odds ratio (OR) or risk ratio (RR) at 95% confidence interval (CI), the Mantel-Haenszel formula with random effect was used and Generic Inverse Variance method assessed pooled mean difference value at a 95% CI. RevMan was used for analysis. P<0.05 was considered significant.
RESULTS
We analyzed five phase 3 RCTs including 609 patients to compare mavacamten with a placebo. New York Heart Association (NYHA) grade improvement and KCCQ score showed the odds ratio as 4.94 and 7.93 with p<0.00001 at random effect, respectively. Cardiac imaging which included LAVI, LVOT at rest, LVOT post valsalva, LVOT post-exercise, and reduction in LVEF showed the pooled mean differences for change as -5.29, -49.72, -57.45, -36.11, and -3.00 respectively. Changes in LVEDV and LVMI were not statistically significant. The pooled mean difference for change in NT-proBNP and Cardiac troponin-I showed 0.20 and 0.57 with p<0.00001. The efficacy was evaluated in 1) A composite score, which was defined as either 1·5 mL/kg per min or greater increase in peak oxygen consumption (pVO2) and at least one NYHA class reduction, or a 3·0 mL/kg per min or greater pVO2 increase without NYHA class worsening and 2) changes in pVO2, which was not statistically significant. Similarly, any treatment-associated emergent adverse effects (TEAE), treatment-associated serious adverse effects (TSAE), and cardiac-related adverse effects were not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION
Mavacamten influences diverse facets of HCM comprehensively. Notably, our study delved into the drug's impact on the heart's structural and functional aspects, providing insights that complement prior findings. Further large-scale trials are needed to evaluate the safety profile of Mavacamten.
Topics: Humans; Cardiomyopathy, Hypertrophic; Heart; Benzylamines; Biomarkers; Uracil
PubMed: 38635724
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301704 -
Immunity, Inflammation and Disease Apr 2024This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of molnupiravir and sotrovimab in the treatment of patients with coronavirus... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study Review
BACKGROUND AND AIM
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of molnupiravir and sotrovimab in the treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
METHODS
Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, medRxiv, and Google Scholar were systematically searched to identify relevant evidence up to December 2023. The risk of bias was assessed using the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions tool. Data were analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA).
RESULTS
Our search identified and included 13 studies involving 16166 patients. The meta-analysis revealed a significant difference between the molnupiravir and sotrovimab groups in terms of the mortality rate (odds ratio [OR] = 2.07, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16, 3.70). However, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of hospitalization rate (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.47, 1.06), death or hospitalization rate (OR = 1.51, 95% CI: 0.81, 2.83), and intensive care unit admission (OR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.07, 4.84). In terms of safety, molnupiravir was associated with a higher incidence of adverse events (OR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.21, 2.30).
CONCLUSION
The current findings indicate that sotrovimab may be more effective than molnupiravir in reducing the mortality rate in COVID-19 patients. However, no statistical difference was observed between the two treatments for other effectiveness outcomes. The certainty of evidence for these findings was rated as low or moderate. Further research is required to provide a better comparison of these interventions in treating COVID-19 patients.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Hydroxylamines; Cytidine; Antiviral Agents; SARS-CoV-2; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; COVID-19; Treatment Outcome; Hospitalization; Antibodies, Neutralizing
PubMed: 38652021
DOI: 10.1002/iid3.1262 -
Theranostics 2021Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread worldwide and poses a threat to humanity. However, no specific therapy has been established for this disease yet. We...
Treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a systematic review of , , and clinical trials.
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread worldwide and poses a threat to humanity. However, no specific therapy has been established for this disease yet. We conducted a systematic review to highlight therapeutic agents that might be effective in treating COVID-19. We searched Medline, Medrxiv.org, and reference lists of relevant publications to identify articles of , , and clinical studies on treatments for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and COVID-19 published in English until the last update on October 11, 2020. We included 36 studies on SARS, 30 studies on MERS, and 10 meta-analyses on SARS and MERS in this study. Through 12,200 title and 830 full-text screenings for COVID-19, eight studies, 46 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on 6,886 patients, and 29 meta-analyses were obtained and investigated. There was no therapeutic agent that consistently resulted in positive outcomes across SARS, MERS, and COVID-19. Remdesivir showed a therapeutic effect for COVID-19 in two RCTs involving the largest number of total participants (n = 1,461). Other therapies that showed an effect in at least two RCTs for COVID-19 were sofosbuvir/daclatasvir (n = 114), colchicine (n = 140), IFN-β1b (n = 193), and convalescent plasma therapy (n = 126). This review provides information to help establish treatment and research directions for COVID-19 based on currently available evidence. Further RCTs are required.
Topics: Adenosine Monophosphate; Alanine; Animals; Antiviral Agents; COVID-19; Carbamates; Coronavirus Infections; Disease Models, Animal; Drug Combinations; Drug Evaluation, Preclinical; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Imidazoles; Immunization, Passive; Pyrrolidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome; Sofosbuvir; Treatment Outcome; Valine; COVID-19 Serotherapy
PubMed: 33391531
DOI: 10.7150/thno.48342 -
BMJ Open Mar 2022To summarise specific adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir in patients with COVID-19. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To summarise specific adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir in patients with COVID-19.
METHODS
We searched 32 databases through 27 October 2020. We included randomised trials comparing any of the drugs of interest to placebo or standard care, or against each other. We conducted fixed-effects pairwise meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation approach.
RESULTS
We included 16 randomised trials which enrolled 8152 patients. For most interventions and outcomes the certainty of the evidence was very low to low except for gastrointestinal adverse effects from hydroxychloroquine, which was moderate certainty. Compared with standard care or placebo, low certainty evidence suggests that remdesivir may not have an important effect on acute kidney injury (risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 27 fewer to 21 more) or cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 3 more per 1000, 95% CI 12 fewer to 19 more). Low certainty evidence suggests that hydroxychloroquine may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity (RD 10 more per 1000, 95% CI 0 more to 30 more) and cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 33 more per 1000, 95% CI 18 fewer to 84 more), whereas moderate certainty evidence suggests hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea (RD 106 more per 1000, 95% CI 48 more to 175 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 62 more per 1000, 95% CI 23 more to 110 more) compared with standard care or placebo. Low certainty evidence suggests lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea (RD 168 more per 1000, 95% CI 58 more to 330 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 160 more per 1000, 95% CI 100 more to 210 more) compared with standard care or placebo.
DISCUSSION
Hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting and may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity and cognitive dysfunction/delirium. Lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting. Remdesivir may have no important effect on risk of acute kidney injury or cognitive dysfunction/delirium. These findings provide important information to support the development of evidence-based management strategies for patients with COVID-19.
Topics: Adenosine Monophosphate; Alanine; Drug Combinations; Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; Lopinavir; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ritonavir; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35236729
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048502 -
The Journal of Dermatological Treatment Dec 2024Brivudine has been used in herpes zoster (HZ) treatment for years, but the safety and efficacy of brivudine are inconclusive. Here we perform a meta-analysis to assess... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Brivudine has been used in herpes zoster (HZ) treatment for years, but the safety and efficacy of brivudine are inconclusive. Here we perform a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy, safety, incidence of postherpetic neuralgia of brivudine.
METHODS
Data of randomized controlled Trials (RCTS) were obtained from the databases of both English (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) and Chinese (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Science Journal Database, and WanFang Database) literatures from inception to 12 September 2022. Meta-analyses of efficacy and safety of Brivudine for the treatment of herpes zoster for RCTS were conducted.
RESULTS
The analyses included seven RCTS (2095 patients in experimental group and 2076 patients in control group) in the treatment of HZ with brivudine. It suggested that the brivudine group was superior to the control group in terms of efficacy ( = .0002) and incidence of postherpetic neuralgia ( = .04). But the incidence of adverse reactions has no significant difference between the brivudine and the control groups ( = .22). In addition, subgroup analysis of adverse events also showed that brivudine was about the same safety as other modalities in the treatment of HZ ( > .05).
CONCLUSIONS
Brivudine is effective for HZ. However, the evidence on the safety of brivudine is insufficient.
Topics: Humans; Herpes Zoster; Neuralgia, Postherpetic; Antiviral Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Incidence; Bromodeoxyuridine
PubMed: 38811010
DOI: 10.1080/09546634.2024.2355256 -
European Review For Medical and... Sep 2022Multi-agent regimens such as Folfirinox and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel have shown significant improvements compared with single-agent gemcitabine as neoadjuvant... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant Folfirinox and Gemcitabine plus Nab-Paclitaxel for borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
Multi-agent regimens such as Folfirinox and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel have shown significant improvements compared with single-agent gemcitabine as neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic cancer. However, the efficacy and safety of Folfirinox and GNP as NAC for BRPC and LAPC is still controversial.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The eligible studies including prospective, retrospective, and randomized controlled trial related to Folfirinox and GNP as NAC for patients with BRPC or LAPC up to March 2022 were searched and assessed. Pooled analysis for chemotherapy response rate, resection rate, R0 resection rate, progress free survival, overall survival, and grade 3/4 events of toxicity were performed in the study.
RESULTS
Eight studies were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with GNP, Folfirinox had higher resection rate (HR=0.82; 95% CI 0.59-1.14) and R0 resection rate (HR=0.77; 95% CI 0.60-0.97), better PFS (HR=0.78; 95% CI 0.55-1.12) and OS (HR=0.68; 95% CI 0.46-0.99), and without increasing severe toxicity rate (HR=0.95; 95% CI 0.71-1.28). There are no differences in rate of stable disease (HR=1.06; 95% CI 0.92-1.22) and partial/complete regression (HR=0.85; 95% CI 0.59-1.23) between two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Higher resection and R0 resection rate and better PFS and OS results were obtained in Folfirinox group compared with GNP group for patients with BRPC and LAPC. There was no increased severe toxicity rate for Folfirinox compared with GNP.
Topics: Albumins; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Deoxycytidine; Fluorouracil; Humans; Irinotecan; Leucovorin; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Oxaliplatin; Paclitaxel; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 36111933
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202209_29656 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2021This is a updated version of our Cochrane Review published in Issue 6, 2012. Sexually-transmitted infections (STIs) continue to rise worldwide, imposing an enormous... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This is a updated version of our Cochrane Review published in Issue 6, 2012. Sexually-transmitted infections (STIs) continue to rise worldwide, imposing an enormous morbidity and mortality burden. Effective prevention strategies, including microbicides, are needed to achieve the goals of the World Heath Organization (WHO) global strategy for the prevention and control of these infections.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of topical microbicides for preventing acquisition of STIs, including HIV.
SEARCH METHODS
We undertook a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, CLIB, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and reference lists of relevant articles up to August 2020. In addition, we contacted relevant organisations and experts.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of vaginal microbicides compared to placebo (except for nonoxynol-9 because it is covered in related Cochrane Reviews). Eligible participants were sexually-active non-pregnant, WSM and MSM, who had no laboratory confirmed STIs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened and selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias in duplicate, resolving differences by consensus. We conducted a fixed-effect meta-analysis, stratified by type of microbicide, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight trials from the earlier version of the review and four new trials, i.e. a total of 12 trials with 32,464 participants (all WSM). We did not find any eligible study that enrolled MSM or reported fungal STI as an outcome. We have no study awaiting assessment. All 12 trials were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa, with one having a study site in the USA, and another having a site in India. Vaginal microbicides tested were BufferGel and PRO 2000 (1 trial, 3101 women), Carraguard (1 trial, 6202 women), cellulose sulphate (2 trials, 3069 women), dapivirine (2 trials, 4588 women), PRO 2000 (1 trial, 9385 women), C31G (SAVVY) (2 trials, 4295 women), and tenofovir (3 trials, 4958 women). All microbicides were compared to placebo and all trials had low risk of bias. Dapivirine probably reduces the risk of acquiring HIV infection: risk ratio (RR) 0.71, (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.89, I = 0%, 2 trials, 4588 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The other microbicides may result in little to no difference in the risk of acquiring HIV (low-certainty evidence); including tenofovir (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.02, cellulose sulphate (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.95, BufferGel (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.52), Carraguard (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.11), PRO 2000 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.14), and SAVVY (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.41). Existing evidence suggests that cellulose sulphate (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.37 to 2.62, 1 trial, 1425 women), and PRO 2000 (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.23) may result in little to no difference in the risk of getting herpes simplex virus type 2 infection (low-certainty evidence). Two studies reported data on tenofovir's effect on this virus. One suggested that tenofovir may reduce the risk (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.82; 224 participants) while the other did not find evidence of an effect (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.03; 1003 participants). We have not reported the pooled result because of substantial heterogeneity of effect between the two studies (l = 85%). The evidence also suggests that dapivirine (RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.63 to 4.59), tenofovir (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.78), cellulose sulphate (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.81), and (Carraguard (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.52) may have little or no effect on the risk of acquiring syphilis (low-certainty evidence). In addition, dapivirine (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.07), tenofovir (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.13), cellulose sulphate (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.99), BufferGel (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.45), Carraguard (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.12), and PRO 2000 (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.22) may result in little to no difference in the risk of acquiring chlamydia infection (low-certainty evidence). The evidence also suggests that current topical microbicides may not have an effect on the risk of acquiring gonorrhoea, condyloma acuminatum, trichomoniasis, or human papillomavirus infection (low-certainty evidence). Microbicide use in the 12 trials, compared to placebo, did not lead to any difference in adverse event rates. No study reported on acceptability of the intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence shows that vaginal dapivirine microbicide probably reduces HIV acquisition in women who have sex with men. Other types of vaginal microbicides have not shown evidence of an effect on acquisition of STIs, including HIV. Further research should continue on the development and testing of new microbicides.
Topics: Acrylic Resins; Adenine; Administration, Intravaginal; Agaricales; Anti-HIV Agents; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Bias; Cellulose; Female; HIV Infections; Humans; Naphthalenesulfonates; Placebos; Polymers; Pyrimidines; Seaweed; Sexually Transmitted Diseases; Tenofovir
PubMed: 33719075
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007961.pub3 -
Journal of Medical Virology Feb 2021Treatment options for severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) are limited with no clarity on efficacy and safety profiles. We performed a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Treatment options for severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) are limited with no clarity on efficacy and safety profiles. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on patients ≥18 years reporting data on therapeutic interventions in SARS-CoV-2. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality and secondary outcomes were rates of mechanical ventilation, viral clearance, adverse events, discharge, and progression to severe disease. Pooled rates and odds ratios (OR) were calculated. Twenty-nine studies with 5207 patients were included. Pooled all-cause mortality in intervention arm was 12.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.1%-17.4%). Mortality was significantly higher for studies using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for intervention (OR: 1.36; 95% CI: 0.97-1.89). Adverse events were also higher in HCQ subgroup (OR: 3.88; 95% CI: 1.60-9.45). There was no difference in other secondary outcomes. There is a need for well-designed randomized clinical trials for further investigation of every therapeutic intervention for further insight into different therapeutic options.
Topics: Adenosine Monophosphate; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Alanine; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antiviral Agents; COVID-19; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Combinations; Female; Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; Immunization, Passive; Lopinavir; Male; Middle Aged; Odds Ratio; Ritonavir; SARS-CoV-2; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome; COVID-19 Serotherapy
PubMed: 32667699
DOI: 10.1002/jmv.26302 -
Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical... Oct 2020Limited treatment options are available in chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The objective was to conduct a systematic literature review (SLR)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Limited treatment options are available in chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The objective was to conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) and exploratory network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the tolerability and effectiveness of SIRT with Y-90 resin microspheres, regorafenib, TAS-102 (trifluridine/tipiracil), and best supportive care (BSC) as third-line treatment in patients with mCRC.
METHODS
An SLR was conducted to identify studies comparing two or more of the treatments and reporting overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, tumor response, or adverse event (AE) incidence. An exploratory NMA was conducted to compare hazard ratios (HRs) for OS using Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) techniques.
RESULTS
Seven studies were identified in the SLR: two double-blind randomized-controlled trials (RCT) for each drug, one open-label RCT, and two non-randomized comparative studies for SIRT. Patient selection criteria differed between studies, with SIRT studies including patients with liver-dominant colorectal metastases. Nausea and vomiting were more frequent with TAS-102 than regorafenib or SIRT; diarrhea was more common with TAS-102 and regorafenib than SIRT. The exploratory NMA suggested that all active treatments improved OS, with HRs of 0.48 (95% CrI 0.30-0.78) for SIRT with Y-90 resin microspheres, 0.63 (0.38-1.03) for TAS-102, and 0.67 (0.40-1.08) for regorafenib each compared to BSC.
CONCLUSIONS
Regorafenib, TAS-102 and SIRT using Y-90 resin microspheres are more effective than BSC in third-line treatment of mCRC; however, study heterogeneity made comparisons between active treatments challenging. SIRT is a viable treatment for third-line mCRC and its favorable AE profile should be considered in the therapeutic decision-making process.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Brachytherapy; Colorectal Neoplasms; Double-Blind Method; Drug Combinations; Humans; Microspheres; Neoplasm Metastasis; Network Meta-Analysis; Palliative Care; Phenylurea Compounds; Progression-Free Survival; Pyridines; Pyrrolidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thymine; Trifluridine; Uracil; Yttrium Radioisotopes
PubMed: 32715436
DOI: 10.1007/s00432-020-03315-6 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Jul 2020Gemcitabine combined the oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine (GemCap) is an active antitumor therapy in the treatment of advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer, and has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Gemcitabine combined the oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine (GemCap) is an active antitumor therapy in the treatment of advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer, and has been shown potential synergistic activity in previous clinical trials. In this study, we sought to systematically review and synthesize the efficacy and safety of GemCap in the treatment of advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed through PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases up to Jul 10, 2019 to identify clinical trials that included advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer patients treated with GemCap. Data of overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), 1-year survival rate, objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) and adverse events were extracted and meta-analyzed.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies were identified for systematic review, of which 13 were included in the metaanalysis. In comparison with Gem monotherapy, the pooled hazard ratios (HR) of GemCap treatment for OS and PFS were 0.85 (95% CI: 0.75-0.95, P=0.007) and 0.80 (95% CI: 0.72-1.04, P=0.0002). The pooled 1-year survival rate, ORR and DCR of GemCap were, respectively, 33.1% (95% CI: 28.7-37.5), 22.9% (95% CI: 17.6-28.3) and 65.7% (95% CI: 56.7-74.8). GemCap combination therapy showed significantly higher ORR (OR: 1.98, 95% CI: 1.34-2.67, P=0.0003) and DCR (OR: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.05- 1.88, P=0.02) compared to Gem monotherapy. The most common grade ≥3 hematological toxicities in patients treated with GemCap combination therapy were neutropenia (19.7%), leucocytopenia (7.9%) and anemia (4.9%). The most common grade ≥3 non-hematological toxicities were hand-foot syndrome (6.3%), fatigue (5.7%) and nausea (4.8%).
CONCLUSIONS
GemCap combination therapy had an encouraging activity and might be a better treatment strategy compared with Gem alone in the first-line treatment for patients with advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Capecitabine; Deoxycytidine; Humans; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 32576005
DOI: 10.21037/apm-20-45