-
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jul 2011About 10% of adults have suffered an attack of asthma, and up to 5% of these have severe disease that responds poorly to treatment. Patients with severe disease have an... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
About 10% of adults have suffered an attack of asthma, and up to 5% of these have severe disease that responds poorly to treatment. Patients with severe disease have an increased risk of death, but patients with mild-to-moderate disease are also at risk of exacerbations. Most guidelines about the management of asthma follow stepwise protocols. This review does not endorse or follow any particular protocol, but presents the evidence about specific interventions.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for chronic asthma? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 54 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: adding anti-IgE treatment; beta(2) agonists (adding long-acting inhaled beta(2) agonists when asthma is poorly controlled by inhaled corticosteroids, or short-acting inhaled beta(2) agonists as needed for symptom relief); inhaled corticosteroids (low dose and increasing dose); leukotriene antagonists (with or without inhaled corticosteroids); and theophylline (when poorly controlled by inhaled corticosteroids).
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Administration, Oral; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adrenergic beta-Agonists; Adult; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Antibodies, Anti-Idiotypic; Asthma; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Leukotriene Antagonists; Theophylline
PubMed: 21749735
DOI: No ID Found -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Jul 2023Growing evidence is highlighting the inefficacy of clindamycin as an effective substitute to amoxicillin in patients self-reporting a penicillin allergy. The hypothesis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Self-reported allergy to penicillin and clindamycin administration may be risk factors for dental implant failure: A systematic review, meta-analysis and delabeling protocol.
OBJECTIVE
Growing evidence is highlighting the inefficacy of clindamycin as an effective substitute to amoxicillin in patients self-reporting a penicillin allergy. The hypothesis is that implant failure is higher in these patients, when compared to patients receiving penicillin. To test this hypothesis, a systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken and a protocol for delabeling penicillin allergic patients was presented.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review was undertaken by searching across three different databases, namely PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science.
RESULTS
Out of 572 results, four studies were eligible to be included. Fixed-effects meta-analysis showed a higher number of failed implants in patients who were administered clindamycin, because of a self-reported allergy to penicillin. Results showed that these patients are over three times more likely (OR = 3.30, 95% C.I. 2.58-4.22, p-value < .00001) to undergo implant failure with an average cumulative proportion of 11.0% (95% C.I. 3.5-22.0%) versus 3.8% (95% C.I. 1.2-7.7%) of patients not requiring clindamycin and administered amoxicillin. A protocol for penicillin allergy delabeling is proposed.
CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence is still limited and based on retrospective observational studies, it is difficult to state if penicillin allergy, clindamycin administration or a combination of both is responsible for the current trends and reported findings.
Topics: Humans; Amoxicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Clindamycin; Dental Implants; Drug Hypersensitivity; Hypersensitivity; Penicillins; Retrospective Studies; Risk Factors; Self Report; Clinical Protocols
PubMed: 37102260
DOI: 10.1111/clr.14073 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2010About 10% of adults have suffered an attack of asthma, and up to 5% of these have severe disease that responds poorly to treatment. Patients with severe disease have an... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
About 10% of adults have suffered an attack of asthma, and up to 5% of these have severe disease that responds poorly to treatment. Patients with severe disease have an increased risk of death, but patients with mild-to-moderate disease are also at risk of exacerbations. Most guidelines about the management of asthma follow stepwise protocols. This review does not endorse or follow any particular protocol, but presents the evidence about specific interventions.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments for chronic asthma? What are the effects of treatments for acute asthma? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2008 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 99 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions. For acute asthma: beta(2) agonists (plus ipratropium bromide, pressured metered-dose inhalers, short-acting continuous nebulised, short-acting intermittent nebulised, and short-acting intravenous); corticosteroids (inhaled); corticosteroids (single oral, combined inhaled, and short courses); education about acute asthma; generalist care; helium-oxygen mixture (heliox); magnesium sulphate (intravenous and adding isotonic nebulised magnesium to inhaled beta(2) agonists); mechanical ventilation; oxygen supplementation (controlled 28% oxygen and controlled 100% oxygen); and specialist care. For chronic asthma: beta(2) agonists (adding long-acting inhaled beta(2) agonists when asthma is poorly controlled by inhaled corticosteroids, or short-acting inhaled beta(2) agonists as needed for symptom relief); inhaled corticosteroids (low dose and increasing dose); leukotriene antagonists (with or without inhaled corticosteroids); and theophylline (when poorly controlled by inhaled corticosteroids).
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Inhalation; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Humans; Leukotriene Antagonists; Theophylline
PubMed: 21718577
DOI: No ID Found -
Health Technology Assessment... Dec 2011Multiple myeloma (MM) is the second most common haematological cancer in the UK. MM is not curable but can be treated with a combination of supportive measures and... (Review)
Review
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bortezomib and thalidomide in combination regimens with an alkylating agent and a corticosteroid for the first-line treatment of multiple myeloma: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
BACKGROUND
Multiple myeloma (MM) is the second most common haematological cancer in the UK. MM is not curable but can be treated with a combination of supportive measures and chemotherapy that aim to extend the duration and quality of survival. The majority of patients are not able to withstand intensive treatment, such as high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation (SCT), and so they are offered single-agent or combination chemotherapy. Combination therapies typically include chemotherapy with an alkylating agent and a corticosteroid. More recently, combination therapies have incorporated drugs such as thalidomide (Thalidomide Celgene®, Celgene) and bortezomib (Velcade®, Janssen-Cilag).
OBJECTIVE
To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bortezomib or thalidomide in combination chemotherapy regimens with an alkylating agent and a corticosteroid for the first-line treatment of MM.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic bibliographic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, were searched from 1999 to 2009 for English-language articles. Bibliographies of articles, grey literature sources and manufacturers' submissions were also searched. Experts in the field were asked to identify additional published and unpublished references.
REVIEW METHODS
Titles and abstracts were screened for eligibility by two reviewers independently. The inclusion criteria specified in the protocol were applied to the full text of retrieved papers by one reviewer and checked independently by a second reviewer. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Differences in opinion were resolved through discussion at each stage. A cost-utility decision-analytic model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness estimates of bortezomib in combination with melphalan and prednisolone/prednisone (VMP), thalidomide in combination with cyclophosphamide and attenuated dexamethasone (CTDa), and thalidomide in combination with melphalan and prednisolone/prednisone (MPT) versus melphalan and prednisolone/prednisone (MP).
RESULTS
A total of 1436 records were screened and 40 references were retrieved for the systematic review of clinical effectiveness. Five randomised controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria for the review: one RCT evaluated VMP, three evaluated MPT and one evaluated CTDa. The comparator in all of the included trials was MP. The review found that VMP and MPT can both be considered more clinically effective than MP for the first-line treatment of MM in people for whom high-dose therapy and SCT would not be appropriate. CTDa was more effective than MP in terms of complete response but data on survival outcomes did not meet the inclusion criteria. Cost-effectiveness analysis indicated that MPT has a greater probability of being cost-effective than either VMP or CTDa.
LIMITATIONS
For most RCTs, details needed to judge study quality were incompletely reported. All studies stated that the analyses followed intention-to-treat principles but none adequately reported data censoring. Only one RCT contributed data on VMP and the published peer-reviewed follow-up data were immature. For MPT, overall survival data from two trials were eligible for inclusion but the doses of thalidomide differed between the trials and the treatment period was not reflective of current UK practice so the generalisability of the findings was uncertain. Two RCTs had a maintenance phase with thalidomide that did not meet the inclusion criteria so some of these results were not eligible for the review. Limited evidence on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was provided by the single trial of VMP versus MP.
CONCLUSIONS
Service provision is unlikely to change greatly. As uncertainties remain, further research is needed regarding the use of bortezomib- and thalidomide-containing combination regimens. Head-to-head trials of bortezomib- and thalidomide-containing combination regimes are required, including assessments of patient HRQoL in response to treatment.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Alkylating Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Boronic Acids; Bortezomib; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Cyclophosphamide; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Melphalan; Multiple Myeloma; Pyrazines; Quality of Life; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Survival Analysis; Thalidomide
PubMed: 22146234
DOI: 10.3310/hta15410 -
Annals of Oncology : Official Journal... Jan 2016The efficacy and safety of a combination of chemotherapeutic agent compared with single-agent chemotherapy in the second-line setting of advanced urothelial carcinoma... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The efficacy and safety of a combination of chemotherapeutic agent compared with single-agent chemotherapy in the second-line setting of advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) are unclear. We aimed to study the survival impact of single-agent compared with doublet chemotherapy as second-line chemotherapy of advanced UC.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Literature was searched for studies including single-agent or doublet chemotherapy in the second-line setting after platinum-based chemotherapy. Random-effects models were used to pool trial-level data according to treatment arm, including median progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) probability, and grade 3-4 toxicity. Univariable and multivariable analyses, including sensitivity analyses, were carried out, adjusting for the percent of patients with ECOG performance status ≥1 and hepatic metastases.
RESULTS
Forty-six arms of trials including 1910 patients were selected: 22 arms with single agent (n = 1202) and 24 arms with doublets (n = 708). The pooled ORR with single agents was 14.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 11.1-17.9] versus 31.9% [95% CI 27.3-36.9] with doublet chemotherapy. Pooled median PFS was 2.69 and 4.05 months, respectively. The pooled median OS was 6.98 and 8.50 months, respectively. Multivariably, the odds ratio for ORR and the pooled median difference of PFS were statistically significant (P < 0.001 and P = 0.002) whereas the median difference in OS was not (P = 0.284). When including single-agent vinflunine or taxanes only, differences were significant only for ORR (P < 0.001) favoring doublet chemotherapy. No statistically significant differences in grade 3-4 toxicity were seen between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite significant improvements in ORR and PFS, doublet regimens did not extend OS compared with single agents for the second-line chemotherapy of UC. Prospective trials are necessary to elucidate the role of combination chemotherapy, with or without targeted agents, in the salvage setting. Currently, improvements in this field should be pursued considering single-agent chemotherapy as the foundation for new more active combinations.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carcinoma, Transitional Cell; Disease-Free Survival; Humans; Salvage Therapy; Treatment Outcome; Urinary Bladder Neoplasms
PubMed: 26487582
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdv509 -
Targeted Oncology Jun 2017It remains controversial whether the addition of a second cytotoxic agent can further improve the therapeutic effect of gemcitabine monotherapy in advanced or metastatic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Gemcitabine in Combination with a Second Cytotoxic Agent in the First-Line Treatment of Locally Advanced or Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
BACKGROUND
It remains controversial whether the addition of a second cytotoxic agent can further improve the therapeutic effect of gemcitabine monotherapy in advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer (LA/MPC).
OBJECTIVE
The objective of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine-based doublet chemotherapy regimens compared to single-agent gemcitabine in the first-line treatment of unresectable LA/MPC.
METHODS
We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of gemcitabine monotherapy versus gemcitabine in combination with a second cytotoxic agent in patients with LA/MPC. The last search date was December 31, 2016.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven RCTs were identified and included in the present systematic review and meta-analysis, involving a total of 7343 patients. The meta-analysis showed that gemcitabine-based combination therapy significantly improved overall survival (OS) (HR: 0.89; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85-0.94; P < 0.0001), progression-free survival (PFS) (HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.73-0.88; P < 0.0001), and overall response rate (ORR) (RR: 1.83; 95% CI: 1.62-2.07; P < 0.0001) in comparison to single-agent gemcitabine. Subgroup analysis suggested that the antitumor activity differed between gemcitabine-based combination regimens: doublet regimens of gemcitabine plus a taxoid, and gemcitabine plus a fluoropyrimidine, in particular an oral fluoropyrimidine, resulted in a significant OS benefit for the patients. However, the combination of gemcitabine with other cytotoxic agents, such as platinum compounds or topoisomerase inhibitors failed to reduce the mortality risk. Combination therapy caused more grade 3/4 toxicities, including neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, vomiting, diarrhea, and fatigue.
CONCLUSIONS
Gemcitabine-based doublet regimens demonstrated superiority over gemcitabine monotherapy in overall efficacy, but were associated with increased toxicity. Different gemcitabine-based combinations showed different antitumor activity, and doublet regimens of gemcitabine in combination with a taxoid or a fluoropyrimidine, in particular an oral fluoropyrimidine provided significant survival benefits in the first-line treatment of unresectable LA/MPC.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Deoxycytidine; Humans; Neoplasm Metastasis; Neoplasm Staging; Neutropenia; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Survival Analysis; Taxoids; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 28353074
DOI: 10.1007/s11523-017-0486-5 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Nov 2010Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in both men and women, with 80% to 90% of cases caused by smoking. Small cell lung cancer accounts for 20% of all... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in both men and women, with 80% to 90% of cases caused by smoking. Small cell lung cancer accounts for 20% of all cases, and is usually treated with chemotherapy. Adenocarcinoma is the main non-small cell pathology, and is treated initially with surgery.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments for resectable and unresectable non-small cell lung cancer? What are the effects of treatments for small cell lung cancer? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to October 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations, such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 96 systematic reviews and RCTs. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: chemotherapy (postoperative or preoperative, dose intensification), continuous hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy (CHART), first-line platinum (or non-platinum)-based chemotherapy, molecular-targeted therapy, non-CHART hyperfractionated radiotherapy, prophylactic cranial irradiation, second-line chemotherapy (with single agent), second-line molecular-targeted therapy (with gefitinib or erlotinib), and thoracic irradiation (with or without chemotherapy).
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Cranial Irradiation; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Small Cell Lung Carcinoma
PubMed: 21406127
DOI: No ID Found -
Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy Sep 2017Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is an effective treatment for actinic keratoses and early skin cancers, and the only office procedure to control field cancerization.... (Review)
Review
Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is an effective treatment for actinic keratoses and early skin cancers, and the only office procedure to control field cancerization. Procedure-associated pain limits widespread PDT use and by early termination of treatment can decrease overall therapeutic efficacy. Here we review and assess reported interventions on PDT-associated pain, in order to identify the most promising methods to manage treatment-associated pain and identify focus for future studies. Literature search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library by two independent reviewers to select publications that assessed and compared pain quantitatively during PDT treatment for actinic keratoses, basal cell carcinomas, and/or in situ squamous cell carcinomas. A total of 48 studies reporting on pain during PDT were identified and were comprised of two main categories of interventions: pain-controlling therapies and PDT parameter (photosensitizer or photo-irradiation) adjustments. Of these interventions: nerve block, subcutaneous infiltration anesthesia, cold analgesia, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, but not topical anesthetic gels, were associated with less PDT-related pain; 5-aminolevulinic acid (ALA) tended to be more painful than methyl-5-aminolevulinate (MAL); daylight PDT was less painful than conventional PDT; and lower irradiance delivery produced lower pain scores in general. There is no single crystalized protocol for management of PDT-related pain. Evidence suggests that continuous activation of low levels of PpIX with methods using lower irradiance and possibly shorter incubation times are associated with decreased pain without loss of PDT efficacy. Protocols to reduce pain should be standardized and large controlled trials are needed.
Topics: Anesthesia, Local; Carcinoma, Basal Cell; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Keratosis, Actinic; Nerve Block; Pain; Pain Measurement; Photochemotherapy; Photosensitizing Agents; Skin Diseases; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation
PubMed: 28716738
DOI: 10.1016/j.pdpdt.2017.07.002 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Jul 2022Given the growing significance of conversational agents (CAs), researchers have conducted a plethora of relevant studies on various technology- and usability-oriented... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Given the growing significance of conversational agents (CAs), researchers have conducted a plethora of relevant studies on various technology- and usability-oriented issues. However, few investigations focus on language use in CA-based health communication to examine its influence on the user perception of CAs and their role in delivering health care services.
OBJECTIVE
This review aims to present the language use of CAs in health care to identify the achievements made and breakthroughs to be realized to inform researchers and more specifically CA designers.
METHODS
This review was conducted by following the protocols of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 statement. We first designed the search strategy according to the research aim and then performed the keyword searches in PubMed and ProQuest databases for retrieving relevant publications (n=179). Subsequently, 3 researchers screened and reviewed the publications independently to select studies meeting the predefined selection criteria. Finally, we synthesized and analyzed the eligible articles (N=11) through thematic synthesis.
RESULTS
Among the 11 included publications, 6 deal exclusively with the language use of the CAs studied, and the remaining 5 are only partly related to this topic. The language use of the CAs in these studies can be roughly classified into six themes: (1) personal pronouns, (2) responses to health and lifestyle prompts, (3) strategic wording and rich linguistic resources, (4) a 3-staged conversation framework, (5) human-like well-manipulated conversations, and (6) symbols and images coupled with phrases. These derived themes effectively engaged users in health communication. Meanwhile, we identified substantial room for improvement based on the inconsistent responses of some CAs and their inability to present large volumes of information on safety-critical health and lifestyle prompts.
CONCLUSIONS
This is the first systematic review of language use in CA-based health communication. The results and limitations identified in the 11 included papers can give fresh insights into the design and development, popularization, and research of CA applications. This review can provide practical implications for incorporating positive language use into the design of health CAs and improving their effective language output in health communication. In this way, upgraded CAs will be more capable of handling various health problems particularly in the context of nationwide and even worldwide public health crises.
Topics: Communication; Delivery of Health Care; Health Communication; Humans; Language; Life Style
PubMed: 35802407
DOI: 10.2196/37403 -
Current Medical Research and Opinion Nov 2016To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare the efficacy and safety of doublet versus single agent as salvage treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Efficacy and safety of doublet versus single agent as salvage treatment for metastatic breast cancer pretreated with anthracyclines and taxanes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
AIM
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare the efficacy and safety of doublet versus single agent as salvage treatment for pretreated metastatic breast cancer.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). All clinical studies were independently identified by two authors for inclusion. Demographic data, treatment regimens, objective response rate (ORR), and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were extracted and analyzed using Comprehensive MetaAnalysis software (Version 2.0).
RESULTS
Thirteen RCTs involving 4878 pretreated metastatic breast cancer patients were ultimately identified. The pooled results demonstrated that doublet combination therapy significantly improved ORR (RR 1.13, 95% CI: 1.01-1.27, p < .001) and PFS (hazard ration [HR] 0.83, 95% CI: 0.73-0.96, p = .011), but not OS (HR 0.93, 95% CI: 0.86-1.01, p = .065). Similar results were observed in sub-group analysis according to treatment regimens. Additionally, more incidences of grade 3 or 4 myelosuppression toxicities nausea and fatigue were observed in doublet combination therapy.
CONCLUSIONS
In comparison with a single agent alone, doublet combination therapy as salvage treatment for pretreated metastatic breast cancer patients significantly improves ORR and PFS, but not OS. Further studies are recommended to identify patients who will most likely benefit from the appropriate doublet combination therapy.
Topics: Anthracyclines; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Disease-Free Survival; Female; Humans; Neoplasm Metastasis; Salvage Therapy; Taxoids
PubMed: 27489049
DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2016.1219707