-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2014Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) is a complication of diabetic retinopathy that can cause blindness. Although panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) is the treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) is a complication of diabetic retinopathy that can cause blindness. Although panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) is the treatment of choice for PDR, it has secondary effects that can affect vision. An alternative treatment such as anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF), which produces an inhibition of vascular proliferation, could improve the vision of people with PDR.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of anti-VEGFs for PDR.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2014, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to April 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to April 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 28 April 2014.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anti-VEGFs to another active treatment, sham treatment or no treatment for people with PDR. We also included studies that assessed the combination of anti-VEGFs with other treatments.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias for all included trials. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or the mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 RCTs with 1005 participants (1131 eyes) of whom 57% were men. The median number of participants per RCT was 40 (range 15 to 261). The studies took place in Asia (three studies), Europe (two studies), the Middle East (seven studies), North America (three studies) and South America (three studies). Eight RCTs recruited people eligible for PRP, nine RCTs enrolled people with diabetes requiring vitrectomy and one RCT recruited people undergoing cataract surgery. The median follow-up was six months (range one to 12 months). Seven studies were at high risk of bias and the remainder were unclear risk of bias in one or more domains.Very low quality evidence from one study of 61 people showed that people treated with bevacizumab and PRP were less likely to lose 3 or more lines of visual acuity at 12 months compared with people treated with PRP alone (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.81). People treated with anti-VEGF had an increased chance of gaining 3 or more lines of visual acuity but the effect was imprecise and compatible with no effect or being less likely to gain vision (RR 6.78, 95% CI 0.37 to 125.95). No other study reported these two outcomes. On average, people treated with anti-VEGF (bevacizumab, pegaptanib or ranibizumab) had better visual acuity at 12 months compared with people not receiving anti-VEGF (MD -0.07 logMAR, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.02; 5 RCTs, 373 participants, low quality evidence). There was some evidence to suggest a regression of PDR with smaller leakage on fluorescein angiography but it was difficult to estimate a pooled result from the two trials reporting this outcome. People receiving anti-VEGF were less likely to have vitreous or pre-retinal haemorrhage at 12 months (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.65; 3 RCTs, 342 participants, low quality evidence). No study reported on fluorescein leakage or quality of life.All of the nine trials of anti-VEGF before or during vitrectomy investigated bevacizumab; most studies investigated bevacizumab before vitrectomy, one study investigated bevacizumab during surgery.People treated with bevacizumab and vitrectomy were less likely to lose 3 or more lines of visual acuity at 12 months compared with people given vitrectomy alone but the effect was imprecise and compatible with no effect or being more likely to lose vision (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.08 to 3.14; 3 RCTs, 94 participants, low quality evidence). People treated with bevacizumab were more likely to gain 3 or more lines of visual acuity (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.17; 3 RCTs, 94 participants, low quality evidence). On average, people treated with bevacizumab had better visual acuity at 12 months compared with people not receiving bevacizumab but there was uncertainty in the estimate (the CIs included 0; i.e. were compatible with no effect, and there was considerable inconsistency between studies; MD -0.24 logMAR, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.01; 6 RCTs, 335 participants, I(2) = 67%; low quality evidence). People receiving bevacizumab were less likely to have vitreous or pre-retinal haemorrhage at 12 months (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.52; 7 RCTs, 393 participants, low quality evidence). No study reported on quality of life.Reasons for downgrading the quality of the evidence included risk of bias in included studies, imprecision of the estimates, inconsistency of effect estimates and indirectness (few studies reported at 12 months).Adverse effects were rarely reported and there was no evidence for any increased risk with anti-VEGF but given the relatively few studies that reported these, and the low event rate, the power of the analysis to detect any differences was low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was very low or low quality evidence from RCTs for the efficacy and safety of anti-VEGF agents when used to treat PDR over and above current standard treatments. However, the results suggest that anti-VEGFs can reduce the risk of intraocular bleeding in people with PDR. Further carefully designed clinical trials should be able to improve this evidence.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Aptamers, Nucleotide; Bevacizumab; Diabetic Retinopathy; Female; Humans; Light Coagulation; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ranibizumab; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Visual Acuity; Vitrectomy; Vitreoretinopathy, Proliferative
PubMed: 25418485
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008721.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2010Central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) is a common retinal vascular disorder in which macular edema (ME) may develop, with a consequent reduction in visual acuity. The... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) is a common retinal vascular disorder in which macular edema (ME) may develop, with a consequent reduction in visual acuity. The visual prognosis in CRVO-ME is poor in a substantial proportion of patients, especially those with the ischemic subtype, and until recently there has been no treatment of proven benefit. Macular grid laser treatment is ineffective, and whilst a few recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest short-term gains in visual acuity with intravitreal steroids for patients with non-ischemic CRVO-ME, there is no established treatment for ischemic CRVO-ME. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents have been used to treat ME resulting from a variety of causes and may represent a treatment option for CRVO-ME.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the effectiveness and safety of intravitreal anti-VEGF agents in the treatment of CRVO-ME.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 8), MEDLINE (January 1950 to August 2010), EMBASE (January 1980 to August 2010), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to August 2010), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (January 1937 to August 2010), OpenSIGLE (January 1950 to August 2010), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) and ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov). There were no language or date restrictions in the search for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 10 August 2010.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered RCTs that compared intravitreal anti-VEGF agents of any dose or duration to sham injection or no treatment. We focused on studies that included individuals of any age or gender with unilateral or bilateral disease and a minimum of six months follow up. Secondarily, we considered non-randomized studies with the same criteria, but did not conduct a separate electronic search for these.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
We found two RCTs that met the inclusion criteria after independent and duplicate review of the search results. These RCTs utilized different anti-VEGF agents which cannot be assumed to be directly comparable. We, therefore, performed no meta-analysis. Evidence from these trials and from other non-randomized case series is summarized in this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Ranibizumab and pegaptanib sodium have shown promise in the short-term treatment of non-ischemic CRVO-ME. However, effectiveness and safety data from larger RCTs with follow up beyond six months are not yet available. There are no RCT data on anti-VEGF agents in ischemic CRVO-ME. The use of anti-VEGF agents to treat this condition therefore remains experimental.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Aptamers, Nucleotide; Humans; Macular Edema; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ranibizumab; Retinal Vein Occlusion; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 20927757
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007325.pub2 -
Current Pharmaceutical Design 2010Alcohol dependence is a major disease burden of adults in modern society worldwide. There is no cure for alcohol dependence. In this study, we have examined the... (Review)
Review
Alcohol dependence is a major disease burden of adults in modern society worldwide. There is no cure for alcohol dependence. In this study, we have examined the molecular targets of ethanol-induced toxicity in humans based on a systematic review of literature data and then discussed current and potential therapeutic targets for alcohol abuse and dependence. Using human samples with ethanol exposure, microarray analyses of gene expression have shown that numerous genes are up- and/or down-regulated by alcohol exposure. The ethanol-responsive genes mainly encode functional proteins such as proteins involved in nucleic acid binding, transcription factors, selected regulatory molecules, and receptors. These genes are also correlated with important biological pathways, such as angiogenesis, integrin signalling pathway, inflammation, wnt signaling pathway, platelet-derived growth factor signaling pathway, p53 pathway, epidermal growth factor receptor signaling pathway and apoptosis signaling pathway. Currently, only three medications were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence, including the aldehyde dehydrogenase inhibitor disulfiram, the micro-opioid receptor antagonist naltrexone, and the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor inhibitor acamprosate (oral and injectable extended-release formulations). In addition, a number of agents are being investigated as novel treatments for alcohol abuse and dependence. These include selective 5-HT reuptake inhibitors (e.g. fluoxetine), 5-HT(1) receptor agonists (e.g. buspirone), 5-HT(2) receptor antagonists (e.g. ritanserin), 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists (e.g. ondansetron), dopamine receptor antagonists (e.g. aripiprazole and quetiapine), dopamine receptor agonists (e.g. bromocriptine), GABA(B) receptor agonists (e.g. baclofen), and cannabinoid-1 (CB(1)) receptor antagonists. Some of these agents have shown promising efficacy in initial clinical studies. However, further randomized studies with larger samples are warranted to establish their efficacy and safety profiles in the treatment of alcohol dependence.
Topics: Adult; Alcohol Deterrents; Alcoholism; Animals; Drug Design; Ethanol; Gene Expression Regulation; Humans; Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis; Polymorphism, Genetic; Rats; Signal Transduction
PubMed: 20184550
DOI: 10.2174/138161210791034030 -
Journal of the National Cancer Institute Apr 2012MicroRNA (miR) expression may have prognostic value for many types of cancers. However, the miR literature comprises many small studies. We systematically reviewed and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
MicroRNA (miR) expression may have prognostic value for many types of cancers. However, the miR literature comprises many small studies. We systematically reviewed and synthesized the evidence.
METHODS
Using MEDLINE (last update December 2010), we identified English language studies that examined associations between miRs and cancer prognosis using tumor specimens for more than 10 patients during classifier development. We included studies that assessed a major clinical outcome (nodal disease, disease progression, response to therapy, metastasis, recurrence, or overall survival) in an agnostic fashion using either polymerase chain reaction or hybridized oligonucleotide microarrays.
RESULTS
Forty-six articles presenting results on 43 studies pertaining to 20 different types of malignancy were eligible for inclusion in this review. The median study size was 65 patients (interquartile range [IQR] = 34-129), the median number of miRs assayed was 328 (IQR = 250-470), and overall survival or recurrence were the most commonly measured outcomes (30 and 19 studies, respectively). External validation was performed in 21 studies, 20 of which reported at least one nominally statistically significant result for a miR classifier. The median hazard ratio for poor outcome in externally validated studies was 2.52 (IQR = 2.26-5.40). For all classifier miRs in studies that evaluated overall survival across diverse malignancies, the miRs most frequently associated with poor outcome after accounting for differences in miR assessment due to platform type were let-7 (decreased expression in patients with cancer) and miR 21 (increased expression).
CONCLUSIONS
MiR classifiers show promising prognostic associations with major cancer outcomes and specific miRs are consistently identified across diverse studies and platforms. These types of classifiers require careful external validation in large groups of cancer patients that have adequate protection from bias. -
Topics: Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic; Data Interpretation, Statistical; Disease Progression; Gene Expression Profiling; Gene Expression Regulation, Neoplastic; Humans; Lymphatic Metastasis; MicroRNAs; Neoplasms; Odds Ratio; Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis; Polymerase Chain Reaction; Predictive Value of Tests; Prognosis; Research Design; Sample Size; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 22395642
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djs027 -
Brain Imaging and Behavior Oct 2021While C9orf72-specific imaging signatures have been proposed by both ALS and FTD research groups and considerable presymptomatic alterations have also been confirmed in... (Review)
Review
While C9orf72-specific imaging signatures have been proposed by both ALS and FTD research groups and considerable presymptomatic alterations have also been confirmed in young mutation carriers, considerable inconsistencies exist in the literature. Accordingly, a systematic review of C9orf72-imaging studies has been performed to identify consensus findings, stereotyped shortcomings, and unique contributions to outline future directions. A formal literature review was conducted according to the STROBE guidelines. All identified papers were individually reviewed for sample size, choice of controls, study design, imaging modalities, statistical models, clinical profiling, and identified genotype-associated pathological patterns. A total of 74 imaging papers were systematically reviewed. ALS patients with GGGGCC repeat expansions exhibit relatively limited motor cortex involvement and widespread extra-motor pathology. C9orf72 positive FTD patients often show preferential posterior involvement. Reports of thalamic involvement are relatively consistent across the various phenotypes. Asymptomatic hexanucleotide repeat carriers often exhibit structural and functional changes decades prior to symptom onset. Common shortcomings included sample size limitations, lack of disease-controls, limited clinical profiling, lack of genetic testing in healthy controls, and absence of post mortem validation. There is a striking paucity of longitudinal studies and existing presymptomatic studies have not evaluated the predictive value of radiological changes with regard to age of onset and phenoconversion. With the advent of antisense oligonucleotide therapies, the meticulous characterisation of C9orf72-associated changes has gained practical relevance. Neuroimaging offers non-invasive biomarkers for future clinical trials, presymptomatic ascertainment, diagnostic and prognostic applications.
Topics: Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis; C9orf72 Protein; DNA Repeat Expansion; Frontotemporal Dementia; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Proteins
PubMed: 33398779
DOI: 10.1007/s11682-020-00429-w -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a common complication of diabetic retinopathy. Antiangiogenic therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a common complication of diabetic retinopathy. Antiangiogenic therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) modalities can reduce oedema and thereby improve vision and prevent further visual loss. These drugs have replaced laser photocoagulation as the standard of care for people with DMO.
OBJECTIVES
The 2014 update of this review found high-quality evidence of benefit with antiangiogenic therapy with anti-VEGF modalities, compared to laser photocoagulation, for the treatment of DMO.The objective of this updated review is to compare the effectiveness and safety of the different anti-VEGF drugs in preserving and improving vision and quality of life using network meta-analysis methods.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched various electronic databases on 26 April 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any anti-angiogenic drug with an anti-VEGF mechanism of action versus another anti-VEGF drug, another treatment, sham or no treatment in people with DMO.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods for pair-wise meta-analysis and we augmented this evidence using network meta-analysis methods. We focused on the relative efficacy and safety of the three most commonly used drugs as interventions of direct interest for practice: aflibercept and ranibizumab, used on-label; and off-label bevacizumab.We collected data on three efficacy outcomes (gain of 15 or more Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters; mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA); mean change in central retinal thickness (CRT)), three safety outcomes (all severe systemic adverse events (SSAEs); all-cause death; arterial thromboembolic events) and quality of life.We used Stata 'network' meta-analysis package for all analyses. We investigated the risk of bias of mixed comparisons based on the variance contribution of each study, having assigned an overall risk of bias to each study.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-four studies included 6007 participants with DMO and moderate vision loss, of which two studies randomised 265 eyes of 230 participants and one was a cross-over study on 56 participants (62 eyes) that was treated as a parallel-arm trial. Data were collected on drugs of direct interest from three studies on aflibercept (975 eyes), eight studies on bevacizumab (515 eyes), and 14 studies on ranibizumab (1518 eyes). As treatments of indirect interest or legacy treatment we included three studies on pegaptanib (541 eyes), five studies on ranibizumab plus prompt laser (557 eyes), one study on ranibizumab plus deferred laser (188 eyes), 13 studies on laser photocoagulation (936 eyes) and six studies on sham treatment (793 eyes).Aflibercept, bevacizumab and ranibizumab were all more effective than laser for improving vision by 3 or more lines after one year (high-certainty evidence). Approximately one in 10 people improve vision with laser, and about three in 10 people improve with anti-VEGF treatment: risk ratio (RR) versus laser 3.66 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.79 to 4.79) for aflibercept; RR 2.47 (95% CI 1.81 to 3.37) for bevacizumab; RR 2.76 (95% CI 2.12 to 3.59) for ranibizumab. On average there was no change in visual acuity (VA) with laser after one year, compared with a gain of 1 or 2 lines with anti-VEGF treatment: laser versus aflibercept mean difference (MD) -0.20 (95% CI -0.22 to -0.17) logMAR; versus bevacizumab MD -0.12 (95% CI -0.15 to -0.09) logMAR; versus ranibizumab MD -0.12 (95% CI -0.14 to -0.10) logMAR. The certainty of the evidence was high for the comparison of aflibercept and ranibizumab with laser and moderate for bevacizumab comparison with laser due to inconsistency between the indirect and direct evidence.People receiving ranibizumab were less likely to gain 3 or more lines of VA at one year compared with aflibercept: RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.94), moderate-certainty evidence. For every 1000 people treated with aflibercept, 92 fewer would gain 3 or more lines of VA at one year if treated with ranibizumab (22 to 148 fewer). On average people receiving ranibizumab had worse VA at one year (MD 0.08 logMAR units, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.11), moderate-certainty evidence; and higher CRT (MD 39 µm, 95% CI 2 µm to 76 µm; low-certainty evidence). Ranibizumab and bevacizumab were comparable with respect to aflibercept and did not differ in terms of VA: RR of gain of 3 or more lines of VA at one year 1.11 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.43), moderate-certainty evidence, and difference in change in VA was 0.00 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.03) logMAR, moderate-certainty evidence. CRT reduction favoured ranibizumab by -29 µm (95% CI -58 µm to -1 µm, low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of overall statistical inconsistency in our analyses.The previous version of this review found moderate-certainty evidence of good safety of antiangiogenic drugs versus control. This update used data at the longest available follow-up (one or two years) and found that aflibercept, ranibizumab and bevacizumab do not differ regarding systemic serious adverse events (SSAEs) (moderate- or high-certainty evidence). However, risk of bias was variable, loop inconsistency could be found and estimates were not precise enough on relative safety regarding less frequent events such as arterial thromboembolic events or death (low- or very low-certainty evidence).Two-year data were available and reported in only four RCTs in this review. Most industry-sponsored studies were open-label after one year. One large publicly-funded study compared the three drugs at two years and found no difference.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Anti-VEGF drugs are effective at improving vision in people with DMO with three to four in every 10 people likely to experience an improvement of 3 or more lines VA at one year. There is moderate-certainty evidence that aflibercept confers some advantage over ranibizumab and bevacizumab in people with DMO at one year in visual and anatomic terms. Relative effects among anti-VEGF drugs at two years are less well known, since most studies were short term. Evidence from RCTs may not apply to real-world practice, where people in need of antiangiogenic treatment are often under-treated and under-monitored.We found no signals of differences in overall safety between the three antiangiogenic drugs that are currently available to treat DMO, but our estimates are imprecise for cardiovascular events and death.
Topics: Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Aptamers, Nucleotide; Bevacizumab; Diabetic Retinopathy; Humans; Laser Coagulation; Macular Edema; Network Meta-Analysis; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ranibizumab; Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor; Recombinant Fusion Proteins; Triamcinolone; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 28639415
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007419.pub5 -
Expert Opinion on Investigational Drugs Jul 2021Mood disorders are severe yet frequent psychiatric disorders worldwide, comprising major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar disorders (BD). Their treatment remains...
INTRODUCTION
Mood disorders are severe yet frequent psychiatric disorders worldwide, comprising major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar disorders (BD). Their treatment remains poorly effective. Recently, growing evidence for epigenetic mechanisms has emerged. Consequently, a great interest in a novel pharmacological class arose: RNA therapeutics.
AREAS COVERED
We conducted a systematic review of RNA therapeutics -antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs), small interfering RNAs (siRNAs), short hairpin RNAs (shRNAs), and micro-RNA (miRNA) therapeutics- for the treatment of mood disorders studied in pre-clinical animal models listed in PubMed, in clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and available on the market by combining literature search and Food and Drug Administration and European Medicine Agency online databases. Eighteen pre-clinical studies investigated the antidepressant effects of RNA therapeutics. However, even though there is an increasing number of marketing authorizations and clinical trials for the past twenty years, no RNA therapeutic has reached the clinical development pipeline for the treatment of psychiatric disorders yet.
EXPERT OPINION
Several promising RNA therapeutics have been tested in pre-clinical studies for MDD, whereas no molecule has been developed for BD. There are several issues to address before reaching clinical development and new challenges include stratifying patient population and predicting therapeutic response.
Topics: Animals; Bipolar Disorder; Clinical Trials as Topic; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Mood Disorders; RNA
PubMed: 33966550
DOI: 10.1080/13543784.2021.1928073 -
Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral... Mar 2007One of the goals of the fourth meeting of The World Workshop on Oral Medicine (WWOM IV) included a review of the pathophysiology and future directions for the clinical... (Review)
Review
One of the goals of the fourth meeting of The World Workshop on Oral Medicine (WWOM IV) included a review of the pathophysiology and future directions for the clinical management of patients with oral epithelial dysplasia, excluding the lips and oropharynx. In the pathophysiology review of dysplasia since WWOM III (1998-2006), a wide range of molecular changes associated with progression of dysplasia to squamous cell carcinoma were found. These include loss of heterozygosity, dysregulation of apoptosis, aberrant DNA expression, and altered expression of numerous tissue markers. Based on the literature search, no single molecular pathway has been identified as the primary factor in progression of dysplasia to squamous cell carcinoma. A systematic review of medical (i.e., nonsurgical) management strategies for the treatment of dysplastic lesions has shown promising results in short-term resolution of dysplasia in the small number of studies that met eligibility criteria for review. However, because of the limited periods of follow-up reported in these studies, it remains unclear as whether resolution of dysplasia would actually be a long-term benefit of these interventions. This question is particularly germane when it is considered in the context of prevention of future development of squamous cell carcinoma. Because of the lack of randomized controlled trials that have shown effectiveness in the prevention of malignant transformation, no recommendations can be provided for specific surgical interventions of dysplastic oral lesions either.
Topics: Biomarkers, Tumor; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell; Chromosome Aberrations; Humans; Leukoplakia, Oral; Loss of Heterozygosity; Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis; Ploidies
PubMed: 17257863
DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2006.10.015 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization guidelines for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. While in the past, pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, views on children's pain have changed over time, and relief of pain is now seen as importantWe designed a suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol as priority areas) in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions in children and adolescents.As the leading cause of morbidity in children and adolescents in the world today, chronic disease (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Chronic pain (lasting three months or longer) can arise in the paediatric population in a variety of pathophysiological classifications: nociceptive, neuropathic, idiopathic, visceral, nerve damage pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and chronic abdominal pain, and other unknown reasons.Opioids are used worldwide for the treatment of pain. They bind to opioid receptors in the central nervous system (mu, kappa, delta, and sigma) and can be agonists, antagonists, mixed agonist-antagonists, or partial agonists. Opioids are generally available in healthcare settings across most high-income countries, but access may be restricted in low- and middle-income countries. For example, opioids currently available in the UK include: buprenorphine, codeine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, and tramadol. Opioids are used in varying doses (generally based on body weight for paediatric patients) by means of parenteral, transmucosal, transdermal, or oral administration (immediate release or modified release). To achieve adequate pain relief in children using opioids, with an acceptable grade of adverse effects, the recommended method is a lower dose gradually titrated to effect in the child.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of opioids used to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 6 September 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, of any dose and any route, treating chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, comparing opioids with placebo or an active comparator.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat, using standard methods. We assessed GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and planned to create a 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS
No studies were eligible for inclusion in this review. We rated the quality of the evidence as very low. We downgraded the quality of evidence by three levels due to the lack of data reported for any outcome.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was no evidence from randomised controlled trials to support or refute the use of opioids to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. We are unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of opioids to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents.We know from adult randomised controlled trials that some opioids, such as morphine and codeine, can be effective in certain chronic pain conditions.This means that no conclusions could be made about efficacy or harm in the use of opioids to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents.
Topics: Adolescent; Analgesics, Opioid; Child; Child, Preschool; Chronic Pain; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn
PubMed: 28745394
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012538.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2014Central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) is a relatively common retinal vascular disorder in which macular oedema may develop, with a consequent reduction in visual acuity.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) is a relatively common retinal vascular disorder in which macular oedema may develop, with a consequent reduction in visual acuity. Until recently there has been no treatment of proven benefit, but growing evidence supports the use of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the effectiveness and safety of anti-VEGF therapies for the treatment of macular oedema secondary to CRVO.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE (January 1950 to October 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to October 2013), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to October 2013), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (January 1937 to October 2013), OpenGrey, OpenSIGLE (January 1950 to October 2013), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en) and Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S). There were no language or date restrictions in the electronic search for trials. The electronic databases and clinical trials registers were last searched on 29th October 2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared intravitreal anti-VEGF agents of any dose or duration to sham injection or no treatment. We focused on studies that included individuals of any age or gender and a minimum of six months follow-up.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with a gain in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline of greater than or equal to 15 letters (3 lines) on the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of participants with a loss of 15 letters or more of BCVA, the mean change from baseline BCVA, the mean change in central retinal thickness (CRT), the number and type of complications or adverse outcomes, and the number of additional interventions administered. Where available, we also presented quality of life and economic data.
MAIN RESULTS
We found six RCTs that met the inclusion criteria after independent and duplicate review of the search results. These RCTs included 937 participants and compared outcomes at six months to sham injection for four anti-VEGF agents: aflibercept (VEGF Trap-Eye, Eylea), bevacizumab (Avastin), pegaptanib sodium (Macugen) and ranibizumab (Lucentis). Three trials were conducted in Norway, Sweden and the USA, and three trials were multicentre, one including centres in the USA, Canada, India, Israel, Argentina and Columbia, a second including centres in the USA, Australia, France, Germany, Israel, and Spain, and a third including centres in Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Australia, Japan, Singapore and South Korea. We performed meta-analysis on three key visual outcomes, using data from up to six trials. High-quality evidence from six trials revealed that participants receiving intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment were 2.71 times more likely to gain at least 15 letters of visual acuity at six months compared to participants treated with sham injections (risk ratio (RR) 2.71; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 2.10 to 3.49). High-quality evidence from five trials suggested anti-VEGF treatment was associated with an 80% lower risk of losing at least 15 letters of visual acuity at six months compared to sham injection (RR 0.20; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.34). Moderate-quality evidence from three trials (481 participants) revealed that the mean reduction from baseline to six months in central retinal thickness was 267.4 µm (95% CI 211.4 µm to 323.4 µm) greater in participants treated with anti-VEGF than in participants treated with sham. The meta-analyses demonstrate that treatment with anti-VEGF is associated with a clinically meaningful gain in vision at six months. One trial demonstrated sustained benefit at 12 months compared to sham. No significant ocular or systemic safety concerns were identified in this time period.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared to no treatment, repeated intravitreal injection of anti-VEGF agents in eyes with CRVO macular oedema improved visual outcomes at six months. All agents were relatively well tolerated with a low incidence of adverse effects in the short term. Future trials should address the relative efficacy and safety of the anti-VEGF agents and other treatments, including intravitreal corticosteroids, for longer-term outcomes.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Aptamers, Nucleotide; Bevacizumab; Humans; Macular Edema; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ranibizumab; Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor; Recombinant Fusion Proteins; Retinal Vein Occlusion; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 24788977
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007325.pub3