-
The Pan African Medical Journal 2024Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is commonly complicated by anemia. Treating dialysis-dependent patients with anemia, including daprodustat and other inhibitors of prolyl... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study Review
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is commonly complicated by anemia. Treating dialysis-dependent patients with anemia, including daprodustat and other inhibitors of prolyl hydroxylase of hypoxia-inducible factor, recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO), and iron supplements. We conducted this study to test our postulation; daprodustat is superior to rhEPO and other conventional treatments respecting efficacy and safety parameters. We made systematic search through PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane. Seven unique trials were eventually included for systematic review; six of them with a sample size of 759 patients entered our network meta-analysis (NMA). Daprodustat 25-30 mg was associated with the greatest change in serum hemoglobin (MD=1.86, 95%CI= [1.20; 2.52]), ferritin (MD= -180.84, 95%CI= [-264.47; -97.20]), and total iron binding capacity (TIBC) (MD=11.03, 95%CI= [3.15; 18.92]) from baseline values. Dialysis-dependent patients with anemia had a significant increment in serum Hemoglobin and TIBC and a reduction in serum ferritin, in a dose-dependent manner, when administered daprodustat.
Topics: Humans; Anemia; Renal Dialysis; Hemoglobins; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Glycine; Ferritins; Barbiturates; Network Meta-Analysis; Erythropoietin; Recombinant Proteins; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Iron
PubMed: 38828426
DOI: 10.11604/pamj.2024.47.114.37278 -
Medical Science Monitor : International... Dec 2019BACKGROUND This study aimed to conduct a systematic review of the literature to identify key randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), followed by network... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison of Regorafenib, Fruquintinib, and TAS-102 in Previously Treated Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Five Clinical Trials.
BACKGROUND This study aimed to conduct a systematic review of the literature to identify key randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), followed by network meta-analysis, to compare the efficacy and safety profiles of regorafenib, fruquintinib, and TAS-102 in previously treated patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma (mCRC). MATERIAL AND METHODS Systematic literature review was performed using the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library online databases to identify published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and the odds ratios (ORs) for the objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and fatal adverse events (FAEs) were compared indirectly using network meta-analysis based on a random-effects model. RESULTS Five RCTs that included 2,604 patients fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were analyzed. Indirect comparisons showed that fruquintinib was associated with significant superiority for PFS (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.34-0.95) and DCR (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.08-3.01) when compared with TAS-102 in patients with mCRC. However, there was no significant difference between OS or ORR between regorafenib, fruquintinib, and TAS-102. Fruquintinib was associated with a significantly higher risk of SAEs when compared with TAS-102 or regorafenib. There was no significant difference in the risk of AEs or FAEs following indirect comparison between fruquintinib, regorafenib, and TAS-102. CONCLUSIONS The findings from network meta-analysis showed that fruquintinib was associated with significant superiority for PFS and DCR compared with TAS-102, but fruquintinib was associated with significantly increased risk for SAEs compared with regorafenib and TAS-102.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Benzofurans; Colonic Neoplasms; Colorectal Neoplasms; Disease-Free Survival; Drug Combinations; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Phenylurea Compounds; Pyridines; Pyrrolidines; Quinazolines; Rectal Neoplasms; Thymine; Trifluridine; Uracil
PubMed: 31790382
DOI: 10.12659/MSM.918411 -
JAMA Network Open Jan 2022Various first-line chemotherapy treatment regimens for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer have been approved in Japan, including gemcitabine (GEM); fluorouracil,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Various first-line chemotherapy treatment regimens for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer have been approved in Japan, including gemcitabine (GEM); fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin combination (FOLFIRINOX); GEM plus albumin-bound paclitaxel (GEM+NPTX), and S-1 (tegafur + gimeracil + oteracil). However, direct comparisons of these chemotherapy regimens are limited.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the short-term and long-term outcomes associated with first-line chemotherapy regimens for metastatic pancreatic cancer compared with chemotherapy regimens recommended in Japanese guidelines.
DATA SOURCES
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, the bibliographic databases PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, as well as medical journals published between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2018, were searched for clinical trials comparing chemotherapy regimens.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized 2-arm clinical trials evaluating first-line chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) Extension Statement for Reporting of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta-analyses of Health Care Interventions was followed for data abstractions. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. The SIGN 50 Quality Assessment Instrument was used to assess the risk of bias and overall study quality of the selected trials.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary end point was overall survival (OS), and the secondary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) compared with GEM for first-line chemotherapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer. The Kaplan-Meier curve of GEM from the literature and the estimated hazard ratios (HRs) were used to model the long-term associations to calculate the area under the curve (AUC) (person-months) for OS and PFS of each chemotherapy. Sensitivity analyses with multiple functional models were conducted to confirm the long-term estimations.
RESULTS
A total of 22 regimens (25 studies) for OS and a total of 18 regimens (21 studies) for PFS were identified from literature. The total number of participants was 10 186, with 5856 male (57.5%) and 4330 female (42.5%). The FOLFIRINOX and GEM+NPTX regimens were associated with reduction in the risk of death, with an HR of 0.57 (95% CI, 0.41-0.79) and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.55-0.95) compared with GEM, respectively. The curve estimation also showed that FOLFIRINOX had the largest AUC for survival at 15.49 person-months (range, 13.84-15.51 person-months), followed by GEM+NPTX with 12.36 person-months (range, 10.98-12.59 person-months), GEM+ERLO with 10.84 person-months (range, 9.66-11.23 person-months), S-1 with 8.44 person-months (range, 8.26-9.74 person-months), and GEM with 8.10 person-months (range, 7.93-9.38 person-months).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The results of this network meta-analysis support the relative short-term and long-term outcomes associated with first-line chemotherapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer used clinically in Japan.
Topics: Albumins; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Deoxycytidine; Drug Combinations; Fluorouracil; Humans; Irinotecan; Japan; Kaplan-Meier Estimate; Leucovorin; Neoplasm Metastasis; Network Meta-Analysis; Oxaliplatin; Oxonic Acid; Paclitaxel; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Progression-Free Survival; Proportional Hazards Models; Pyridines; Survival Rate; Tegafur; Treatment Outcome; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 35099549
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.45515 -
Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome 2021Molnupiravir is a newer oral antiviral drug that has recently been tested in COVID-19. We aim to conduct a systematic review of literature to find out the efficacy and...
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Molnupiravir is a newer oral antiviral drug that has recently been tested in COVID-19. We aim to conduct a systematic review of literature to find out the efficacy and safety of molnupiravir in patients with COVID-19.
METHODS
We systematically searched the electronic database of PubMed, MedRxiv and Google Scholar from inception until October 15, 2021, using MeSH keywords. Ongoing trials of molnupiravir in COVID-19 were additionally searched from the ClinicalTrials.Gov and ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials. We retrieved all the available granular details of phase 1 to 3 studies of molnupiravir in COVID-19. Subsequently we reviewed the results narratively.
RESULTS
Two phase 1 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled (DBRPC) studies of molnupiravir showed that 1600 mg daily dose is safe and tolerable, without any serious adverse events up to 5.5 days. One phase 2 DBPRC study found significantly lower time to clearance (RNA negativity) with molnupiravir 800 mg twice daily compared to the placebo (log-rank p value = 0.013) in mild to moderate COVID-19. Interim report of one phase 3 DBRPC study in non-hospitalized COVID-19 found a significant reduction in the risk of hospital admission or death by 50% (p = 0.0012). However, no significant benefit was observed with molnupiravir in the later stage of moderate to severe COVID-19.
CONCLUSION
Molnupiravir is first oral antiviral drug to demonstrate a significant benefit in reducing hospitalization or death in mild COVID-19 and could be an important weapon in the battle against SARS-CoV-2. However, its role in moderate to severe COVID-19 is questionable and more studies are needed.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; COVID-19; Cytidine; Hospitalization; Humans; Hydroxylamines; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34742052
DOI: 10.1016/j.dsx.2021.102329 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2020This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2018. The incidence of seizures following supratentorial craniotomy for non-traumatic pathology...
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2018. The incidence of seizures following supratentorial craniotomy for non-traumatic pathology has been estimated to be between 15% to 20%; however, the risk of experiencing a seizure appears to vary from 3% to 92% over a five-year period. Postoperative seizures can precipitate the development of epilepsy; seizures are most likely to occur within the first month of cranial surgery. The use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) administered pre- or postoperatively to prevent seizures following cranial surgery has been investigated in a number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of AEDs when used prophylactically in people undergoing craniotomy and to examine which AEDs are most effective.
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update we searched the following databases on 29 September 2019: Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not apply any language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs of people with no history of epilepsy who were undergoing craniotomy for either therapeutic or diagnostic reasons. We included trials with adequate randomisation methods and concealment; these could either be blinded or unblinded parallel trials. We did not stipulate a minimum treatment period, and we included trials using active drugs or placebo as a control group.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors (JW, JG, YD) independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We resolved any disagreements through discussion. Outcomes investigated included the number of participants experiencing seizures (early (occurring within first week following craniotomy), and late (occurring after first week following craniotomy)), the number of deaths and the number of people experiencing disability and adverse effects. Due to the heterogeneous nature of the trials, we did not combine data from the included trials in a meta-analysis; we presented the findings of the review in narrative format. Visual comparisons of outcomes are presented in forest plots.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 RCTs (N = 1815), which were published between 1983 and 2015. Three trials compared a single AED (phenytoin) with placebo or no treatment. One, three-armed trial compared two AEDs (phenytoin, carbamazepine) with no treatment. A second three-armed trial compared phenytoin, phenobarbital with no treatment. Of these five trials comparing AEDs with placebo or no treatment, two trials reported a statistically significant advantage for AED treatment compared to controls for early seizure occurrence; all other comparisons showed no clear or statistically significant differences between AEDs and control treatment. None of the trials that were head-to-head comparisons of AEDs (phenytoin versus sodium valproate, phenytoin versus phenobarbital, levetiracetam versus phenytoin, zonisamide versus phenobarbital) reported any statistically significant differences between treatments for either early or late seizure occurrence. Only five trials reported incidences of death. One trial reported statistically significantly fewer deaths in the carbamazepine and no-treatment groups compared with the phenytoin group after 24 months of treatment, but not after six months of treatment. Incidences of adverse effects of treatment were poorly reported; however, three trials did show that significantly more adverse events occurred on phenytoin compared to valproate, placebo, or no treatment. No trials reported any results relating to functional outcomes such as disability. We considered the evidence to be of low certainty for all reported outcomes due to methodological issues and variability of comparisons made in the trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is limited, low-certainly evidence to suggest that AED treatment administered prophylactically is either effective or not effective in the prevention of postcraniotomy (early or late) seizures. The current evidence base is limited due to the different methodologies employed in the trials and inconsistencies in the reporting of outcomes including deaths and adverse events. Further evidence from good-quality, contemporary trials is required in order to assess the clinical effectiveness of prophylactic AED treatment compared to placebo or no treatment, or other AEDs in preventing postcraniotomy seizures in this select group of patients.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Carbamazepine; Craniotomy; Humans; Isoxazoles; Levetiracetam; Phenobarbital; Phenytoin; Piracetam; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures; Valproic Acid; Zonisamide
PubMed: 32343399
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007286.pub5 -
Journal of Microbiology, Immunology,... Oct 2021Despite aggressive efforts on containment measures for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic around the world, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2... (Review)
Review
Despite aggressive efforts on containment measures for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic around the world, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is continuously spreading. Therefore, there is an urgent need for an effective antiviral agent. To date, considerable research has been conducted to develop different approaches to COVID-19 therapy. In addition to early observational studies, which could be limited by study design, small sample size, non-randomized design, or different timings of treatment, an increasing number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the clinical efficacy and safety of antiviral agents are being carried out. This study reviews the updated findings of RCTs regarding the clinical efficacy of eight antiviral agents against COVID-19, including remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, favipiravir, sofosbuvir/daclatasvir, sofosbuvir/ledipasvir, baloxavir, umifenovir, darunavir/cobicistat, and their combinations. Treatment with remdesivir could accelerate clinical improvement; however, it lacked additional survival benefits. Moreover, 5-day regimen of remdesivir might show adequate effectiveness in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Favipiravir was only marginally effective regarding clinical improvement and virological assessment based on the results of small RCTs. The present evidence suggests that sofosbuvir/daclatasvir may improve survival and clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. However, the sample sizes for analysis were relatively small, and all studies were exclusively conducted in Iran. Further larger RCTs in other countries are warranted to support these findings. In contrast, the present findings of limited RCTs did not indicate the use of lopinavir/ritonavir, sofosbuvir/ledipasvir, baloxavir, umifenovir, and darunavir/cobicistat in the treatment of patients hospitalized for COVID-19.
Topics: Adenosine Monophosphate; Alanine; Amides; Antiviral Agents; Carbamates; Cobicistat; Darunavir; Dibenzothiepins; Drug Combinations; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Imidazoles; Indoles; Iran; Lopinavir; Morpholines; Pyrazines; Pyridones; Pyrrolidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ritonavir; SARS-CoV-2; Sofosbuvir; Treatment Outcome; Triazines; Valine; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34253490
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmii.2021.05.011 -
Virology Journal Feb 2024Azvudine has been approved for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients in China, and this meta-analysis aims to illustrate the safety of azvudine... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Azvudine has been approved for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients in China, and this meta-analysis aims to illustrate the safety of azvudine and its effectiveness in reducing mortality.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Web of science, Cochrane Library and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 Living Overview of Evidence database (L.OVE) were searched to aggregate currently published studies. Cochrane risk of bias tool and ROBINS-I tool were used to assess the risk of bias of randomized controlled study and cohort study respectively. Odds radios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CIs) were combined for dichotomous variables. Publication bias was assessed by Egger's test and funnel plots.
RESULTS
A total of 184 articles were retrieved from the included databases and 17 studies were included into the final analysis. Pooled analysis showed that azvudine significantly reduced mortality risk in COVID-19 patients compared with controls (OR: 0.41, 95%CI 0.31-0.54, p < 0.001). Besides, either mild to moderate or severe COVID-19 patients could benefit from azvudine administration. There was no significant difference in the incidence of ICU admission (OR: 0.90, 95%CI 0.47-1.72, p = 0.74) and invasive ventilation (OR: 0.94, 95%CI 0.54-1.62, p = 0.82) between azvudine and control group. The incidence of adverse events was similar between azvudine and control (OR: 1.26, 95%CI 0.59-2.70, p = 0.56).
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis suggests that azvudine could reduce the mortality risk of COVID-19 patients, and the safety of administration is acceptable.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO; No.: CRD42023462988; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ .
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Cohort Studies; China; Databases, Factual; Azides; Deoxycytidine
PubMed: 38395970
DOI: 10.1186/s12985-024-02316-y -
BMC Urology Jul 2020Mitomycin (MMC) has been frequently used as the compound for intravesical treatment. The relatively new pyrimidine analog gemcitabine (GEM) has exhibited anticancer... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Mitomycin (MMC) has been frequently used as the compound for intravesical treatment. The relatively new pyrimidine analog gemcitabine (GEM) has exhibited anticancer effect on various solid cancers, such as the advanced bladder cancer. In this study, the GEM and MMC in treating non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) cases was compared through systemic review.
METHODS
In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, the electronic databases, including Embase, PubMed, Chinese biomedicine literature database, the Cochrane Library, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, NHS Evidence, Chinese technological periodical full-text database, and Chinese periodical full-text database, were systemically reviewed from inception to October 2018. Then, the RevMan 5.0 software was applied for data analysis. Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving a total of 335 patients were included.
RESULTS
For MMC group, the recurrence rate in the mitomycin arm increased compared with that in GEM group (OR = 0.44 95% CI [0.24, 0.78]), and the difference was statistically significant between the two groups. GEM was associated with reduced incidence of chemical cystitis compared with that of MMC (OR = 0.23 95% CI [0.12, 0.44]). Differences in hematuria (OR = 0.46 95% CI [0.16, 1.31]), skin reaction (OR = 0.49 95% CI [0.14, 1.70]) and liver and kidney function damage (OR = 0.51 95% CI [0.09, 2.85]) displayed no statistical significance between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
Findings in our study demonstrate the superior efficacy of GEM over MMC in reducing the relapse rate among NMIBC patients following transurethral resection (TUR). In addition, GEM is associated with reduced local toxic effects on the bladder compared with those of MMC. However, more future studies are needed to examine GEM safety when used as the monotherapy or polytherapy for bladder patients. More RCTs with high quality are also required to validate our findings due to the limitations of the current meta-analysis.
Topics: Administration, Intravesical; Antibiotics, Antineoplastic; Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic; Deoxycytidine; Humans; Mitomycin; Neoplasm Invasiveness; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Urinary Bladder Neoplasms; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 32660456
DOI: 10.1186/s12894-020-00610-9 -
BMC Cancer Jul 2021Modified FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GEM-NAB) have been recommended as first-line therapies for advanced pancreatic cancer (PC). Due to the lack of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Modified FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GEM-NAB) have been recommended as first-line therapies for advanced pancreatic cancer (PC). Due to the lack of evidence to directly compare them, we conducted this network meta-analysis to indirectly compare the effectiveness and toxicity of modified FOLFIRINOX and GEM-NAB.
METHODS
The eligible retrospective studies on treatments related to modified FOLFIRINOX and GEM-NAB up to 4 April 2020 were searched and assessed. We used the frequentist model to analyze the survival and toxicity data between different treatments. Pooled analysis for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and events of toxicity were analyzed in this study.
RESULTS
Twenty-two studies were involved in this network meta-analysis. The comparisons on OS and PFS showed that modified FOLFIRINOX and GEM-NAB had similar treatment efficacy (OS: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.78-1.63; PFS: HR: 1.19; 95% CI: 0.85-1.67). GEM-NAB was more effective than modified FOLFIRINOX based on the result of ORR (RR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.04-1.96). Moreover, our analysis showed a similar toxicity profile between modified FOLFIRINOX and GEM-NAB.
CONCLUSIONS
The current evidence showed that modified FOLFIRINOX and GEM-NAB were similar in survival and toxicity. Many factors should be considered for in the formulation of optimal treatment, and our meta-analysis could provide some guidance to treatment selection in the first-line setting for advanced PC.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Albumins; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Deoxycytidine; Female; Fluorouracil; Humans; Irinotecan; Leucovorin; Male; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Staging; Oxaliplatin; Paclitaxel; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Prognosis; Publication Bias; Treatment Outcome; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 34301232
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-021-08605-x -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Several comparative randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed including combinations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Several comparative randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed including combinations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors since the publication of a Cochrane Review on targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in 2008. This review represents an update of that original review.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of targeted therapies for clear cell mRCC in patients naïve to systemic therapy.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed a comprehensive search with no restrictions on language or publication status. The date of the latest search was 18 June 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials, recruiting patients with clear cell mRCC naïve to previous systemic treatment. The index intervention was any TKI-based targeted therapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the included studies and extracted data for the primary outcomes: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and serious adverse events (SAEs); and the secondary outcomes: health-related quality of life (QoL), response rate and minor adverse events (AEs). We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and rated the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 RCTs reporting on 11,590 participants randomised across 18 comparisons. This abstract focuses on the primary outcomes of select comparisons. 1. Pazopanib versus sunitinib Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in PFS as compared to sunitinib (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.23; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 420 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 18 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 76 fewer to 38 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in OS compared to sunitinib (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.06; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 27 more OSs (95% CI 19 fewer to 70 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in SAEs as compared to sunitinib (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09; 1 study, 1102 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 734 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more participants experiencing SAEs (95% CI 44 fewer to 66 more) per 1000 participants. 2. Sunitinib versus avelumab and axitinib Sunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to avelumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.80; 1 study, 886 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 130 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 209 fewer to 53 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in OS (HR 1.28, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.79; 1 study, 886 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 890 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 29 fewer OSs (95% CI 78 fewer to 8 more) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in SAEs (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.10; 1 study, 873 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 705 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more SAEs (95% CI 49 fewer to 71 more) per 1000 participants. 3. Sunitinib versus pembrolizumab and axitinib Sunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.76; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 590 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 125 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 195 fewer to 56 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably reduces OS (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.65; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 880 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 96 fewer OSs (95% CI 167 fewer to 40 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may reduce SAEs as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.02; 1 study, 854 participants; low-certainty evidence) although the CI includes the possibility of no effect. Based on the control event risk of 604 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 60 fewer SAEs (95% CI 115 fewer to 12 more) per 1000 participants. 4. Sunitinib versus nivolumab and ipilimumab Sunitinib may reduce PFS as compared to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.52; 1 study, 847 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 280 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months' follow-up, this corresponds to 89 fewer PFSs (95% CI 136 fewer to 37 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib reduces OS (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.89; 1 study, 847 participants; high-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk 600 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months, this would result in 140 fewer OSs (95% CI 219 fewer to 67 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably increases SAEs (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.53; 1 study, 1082 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 457 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 169 more SAEs (95% CI 101 more to 242 more) per 1000 participants.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the low to high certainty of evidence, several combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to be superior to single-agent targeted therapy in terms of PFS and OS, and with a favourable AE profile. Some single-agent targeted therapies demonstrated a similar or improved oncological outcome compared to others; minor differences were observed for AE within this group. The certainty of evidence was variable ranging from high to very low and all comparisons were based on single trials.
Topics: Adult; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological; Axitinib; Bevacizumab; Bias; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Everolimus; Humans; Indazoles; Ipilimumab; Kidney Neoplasms; Phenylurea Compounds; Progression-Free Survival; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Pyrimidines; Quality of Life; Quinolines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor; Sirolimus; Sorafenib; Sulfonamides; Sunitinib
PubMed: 33058158
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012796.pub2