-
BMC Cancer Jun 2024Colorectal cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. The first and second lines of treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) include chemotherapy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Colorectal cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. The first and second lines of treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) include chemotherapy based on 5-fluorouracil. However, treatment following progression on the first and second line is still unclear. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases for studies investigating the use of trifluridine-tipiracil with bevacizumab versus trifluridine-tipiracil alone for mCRC. We used RStudio version 4.2.3; and we considered p < 0.05 significant. Seven studies and 1,182 patients were included - 602 (51%) received trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab. Compared with control, the progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 0.52; 95% CI 0.42-0.63; p < 0.001) and overall survival (OS) (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.52-0.70; p < 0.001) were significantly higher with bevacizumab. The objective response rate (ORR) (RR 3.14; 95% CI 1.51-6.51; p = 0.002) and disease control rate (DCR) (RR 1.66; 95% CI 1.28-2.16; p = 0.0001) favored the intervention. Regarding adverse events, the intervention had a higher rate of neutropenia (RR 1.38; 95% CI 1.19-1.59; p = 0.00001), whereas the monotherapy group had a higher risk of anemia (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.44-0.82; p = 0.001). Our results support that the addition of bevacizumab is associated with a significant benefit in PFS, OS, ORR and DCR.
Topics: Humans; Colorectal Neoplasms; Bevacizumab; Trifluridine; Thymine; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Pyrrolidines; Drug Combinations; Neoplasm Metastasis; Progression-Free Survival; Uracil; Drug Resistance, Neoplasm
PubMed: 38825703
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-024-12447-8 -
The Journal of Dermatological Treatment Dec 2024Brivudine has been used in herpes zoster (HZ) treatment for years, but the safety and efficacy of brivudine are inconclusive. Here we perform a meta-analysis to assess... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Brivudine has been used in herpes zoster (HZ) treatment for years, but the safety and efficacy of brivudine are inconclusive. Here we perform a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy, safety, incidence of postherpetic neuralgia of brivudine.
METHODS
Data of randomized controlled Trials (RCTS) were obtained from the databases of both English (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) and Chinese (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Science Journal Database, and WanFang Database) literatures from inception to 12 September 2022. Meta-analyses of efficacy and safety of Brivudine for the treatment of herpes zoster for RCTS were conducted.
RESULTS
The analyses included seven RCTS (2095 patients in experimental group and 2076 patients in control group) in the treatment of HZ with brivudine. It suggested that the brivudine group was superior to the control group in terms of efficacy ( = .0002) and incidence of postherpetic neuralgia ( = .04). But the incidence of adverse reactions has no significant difference between the brivudine and the control groups ( = .22). In addition, subgroup analysis of adverse events also showed that brivudine was about the same safety as other modalities in the treatment of HZ ( > .05).
CONCLUSIONS
Brivudine is effective for HZ. However, the evidence on the safety of brivudine is insufficient.
Topics: Humans; Herpes Zoster; Neuralgia, Postherpetic; Antiviral Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Incidence; Bromodeoxyuridine
PubMed: 38811010
DOI: 10.1080/09546634.2024.2355256 -
Urology Jun 2024To determine whether neoadjuvant gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) vs dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (ddMVAC) before radical cystectomy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether neoadjuvant gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) vs dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (ddMVAC) before radical cystectomy improves overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and pathologic complete response (pCR) for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer with secondary analyses of pathological downstaging and toxicity.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis identified studies of patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer treated with neoadjuvant GC compared to ddMVAC from PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE. Random-effect models for pooled log-transformed hazard ratios (HR) for OS and PFS and pooled odds ratios for pCR and downstaging were developed using the generic inverse variance method and Mantel-Haenszel method, respectively.
RESULTS
Ten studies were identified (4 OS, 2 PFS, and 6 pCR clinical endpoints). Neoadjuvant ddMVAC improved OS (HR 0.71 [95% confidence intervals 0.56; 0.90]), PFS (HR 0.76 [95% confidence intervals 0.60; 0.97]), and pathological downstaging (odds ratio 1.34 [95% confidence interval 1.01; 1.78]) as compared to GC. There was no significant difference between regimens for pCR rates (odds ratio 1.38 [95% confidence interval 0.90; 2.12]). Treatment toxicity was greater with ddMVAC. Limitations result from differences in number of ddMVAC cycles and patient selection between studies.
CONCLUSION
Neoadjuvant ddMVAC is associated with improved OS and PFS vs gemcitabine/cisplatin for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer before radical cystectomy. Although rates of pathological complete response were not significantly different, pathological downstaging correlated with OS. ddMVAC should be preferred over gemcitabine/cisplatin for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer who can tolerate its greater toxicity.
Topics: Urinary Bladder Neoplasms; Humans; Cisplatin; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Neoplasm Invasiveness; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Gemcitabine; Deoxycytidine; Cystectomy; Doxorubicin; Vinblastine; Methotrexate; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant
PubMed: 38685388
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2024.04.034 -
PloS One 2024Current treatment recommendations for resectable or borderline pancreatic carcinoma support upfront surgery and adjuvant therapy. However, neoadjuvant therapy (NT) seems... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison of neoadjuvant treatment and surgery first for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic carcinoma: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Current treatment recommendations for resectable or borderline pancreatic carcinoma support upfront surgery and adjuvant therapy. However, neoadjuvant therapy (NT) seems to increase prognosis of pancreatic carcinoma and come to everyone's attention gradually. Randomized controlled trials offering comparison with the NT are lacking and optimal neoadjuvant treatment regimen still remains uncertain. This study aims to compare both treatment strategies for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.
METHODS
The PRISMA checklist was used as a guide to systematically review relevant peer-reviewed literature reporting primary data analysis. We searched PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Datebase and related reviews for randomized controlled trials comparing neoadjuvant therapy with surgery first for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic carcinoma. We estimated relative hazard ratios (HRs) for median overall survival and ratios risks (RRs) for microscopically complete (R0) resection among different neoadjuvant regimens and major complications. We assessed the effects of neoadjuvant therapy on R0 resection rate and median overall survival with Bayesian analysis.
RESULTS
Thirteen eligible articles were included. Eight studies performed comparison neoadjuvant therapy with surgery first, and R0 resection rate was recorded in seven studies. Compared with surgery first, neoadjuvant therapy did increase the R0 resection rate (RR = 1.53, I2 = 0%, P< 0.00001), there was a certain possibility that gemcitabine + cisplatin (Gem+Cis) + Radiotherapy was the most favorable in terms of the fact that there was no significant difference concerning the results from the individual studies. In direct comparison, four studies were included and estimated that Neoadjuvant therapy improved mOS compared with upfront surgery (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.58-0.92; P = 0.012; I2 = 15%), after Bayesian analysis it seemed that regimen with Cisplatin/ Epirubicin then Gemcitabine/ Capecitabine (PEXG) was most likely the best with a relatively small sample size. The rate of major surgical complications was available for six studies and ranged from 11% to 56% with neoadjuvant therapy and 11% to 45% with surgery first. There was no significant difference between neoadjuvant therapy and surgery first, also with a high heterogeneity (RR = 0.96, 95%CI = 0.65-1.43; P = 0.85; I2 = 46%).
CONCLUSION
In conclusion neoadjuvant therapy might offer benefit over up-front surgery. Neoadjuvant therapy increased the R0 resection rate with gemcitabine + cisplatin + Radiotherapy that was the most favorable and improved mOS with Cisplatin/ Epirubicin then Gemcitabine/ Capecitabine (PEXG) that was most likely the best.
Topics: Humans; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Gemcitabine; Capecitabine; Cisplatin; Epirubicin; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Deoxycytidine; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
PubMed: 38451955
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295983 -
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 -
The Oncologist May 2024We performed a systematic literature review to identify and summarize data from studies reporting clinical efficacy and safety outcomes for trifluridine/tipiracil...
We performed a systematic literature review to identify and summarize data from studies reporting clinical efficacy and safety outcomes for trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) combined with other antineoplastic agents in advanced cancers, including metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We conducted a systematic search on May 29, 2021, for studies reporting one or more efficacy or safety outcome with FTD/TPI-containing combinations. Our search yielded 1378 publications, with 38 records meeting selection criteria: 35 studies of FTD/TPI-containing combinations in mCRC (31 studies second line or later) and 3 studies in other tumor types. FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab was extensively studied, including 19 studies in chemorefractory mCRC. Median overall survival ranged 8.6-14.4 months and median progression-free survival 3.7-6.8 months with FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab in refractory mCRC. Based on one randomized and several retrospective studies, FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab was associated with improved outcomes compared with FTD/TPI monotherapy. FTD/TPI combinations with chemotherapy or other targeted agents were reported in small early-phase studies; preliminary data indicated higher antitumor activity for certain combinations. Overall, no safety concerns existed with FTD/TPI combinations; most common grade ≥ 3 adverse event was neutropenia, ranging 5%-100% across all studies. In studies comparing FTD/TPI combinations with monotherapy, grade ≥ 3 neutropenia appeared more frequently with combinations (29%-67%) vs. monotherapy (5%-41%). Discontinuation rates due to adverse events ranged 0%-11% for FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab and 0%-17% with other combinations. This systematic review supports feasibility and safety of FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab in refractory mCRC. Data on non-bevacizumab FTD/TPI combinations remain preliminary and need further validation.
Topics: Humans; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bevacizumab; Colorectal Neoplasms; Drug Combinations; Pyrrolidines; Thymine; Trifluridine
PubMed: 38366864
DOI: 10.1093/oncolo/oyae007 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2024Different therapeutic strategies are available for the treatment of people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), including immunomodulators,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Different therapeutic strategies are available for the treatment of people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), including immunomodulators, immunosuppressants and biological agents. Although each one of these therapies reduces relapse frequency and slows disability accumulation compared to no treatment, their relative benefit remains unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2015.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and safety, through network meta-analysis, of interferon beta-1b, interferon beta-1a, glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, mitoxantrone, fingolimod, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, alemtuzumab, pegylated interferon beta-1a, daclizumab, laquinimod, azathioprine, immunoglobulins, cladribine, cyclophosphamide, diroximel fumarate, fludarabine, interferon beta 1-a and beta 1-b, leflunomide, methotrexate, minocycline, mycophenolate mofetil, ofatumumab, ozanimod, ponesimod, rituximab, siponimod and steroids for the treatment of people with RRMS.
SEARCH METHODS
CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers were searched on 21 September 2021 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. A top-up search was conducted on 8 August 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that studied one or more of the available immunomodulators and immunosuppressants as monotherapy in comparison to placebo or to another active agent, in adults with RRMS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We considered both direct and indirect evidence and performed data synthesis by pairwise and network meta-analysis. Certainty of the evidence was assessed by the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 50 studies involving 36,541 participants (68.6% female and 31.4% male). Median treatment duration was 24 months, and 25 (50%) studies were placebo-controlled. Considering the risk of bias, the most frequent concern was related to the role of the sponsor in the authorship of the study report or in data management and analysis, for which we judged 68% of the studies were at high risk of other bias. The other frequent concerns were performance bias (34% judged as having high risk) and attrition bias (32% judged as having high risk). Placebo was used as the common comparator for network analysis. Relapses over 12 months: data were provided in 18 studies (9310 participants). Natalizumab results in a large reduction of people with relapses at 12 months (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.63; high-certainty evidence). Fingolimod (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.57; moderate-certainty evidence), daclizumab (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.73; moderate-certainty evidence), and immunoglobulins (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.79; moderate-certainty evidence) probably result in a large reduction of people with relapses at 12 months. Relapses over 24 months: data were reported in 28 studies (19,869 participants). Cladribine (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.64; high-certainty evidence), alemtuzumab (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.68; high-certainty evidence) and natalizumab (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.65; high-certainty evidence) result in a large decrease of people with relapses at 24 months. Fingolimod (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.60; moderate-certainty evidence), dimethyl fumarate (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.70; moderate-certainty evidence), and ponesimod (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.70; moderate-certainty evidence) probably result in a large decrease of people with relapses at 24 months. Glatiramer acetate (RR 0.84, 95%, CI 0.76 to 0.93; moderate-certainty evidence) and interferon beta-1a (Avonex, Rebif) (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.91; moderate-certainty evidence) probably moderately decrease people with relapses at 24 months. Relapses over 36 months findings were available from five studies (3087 participants). None of the treatments assessed showed moderate- or high-certainty evidence compared to placebo. Disability worsening over 24 months was assessed in 31 studies (24,303 participants). Natalizumab probably results in a large reduction of disability worsening (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.75; moderate-certainty evidence) at 24 months. Disability worsening over 36 months was assessed in three studies (2684 participants) but none of the studies used placebo as the comparator. Treatment discontinuation due to adverse events data were available from 43 studies (35,410 participants). Alemtuzumab probably results in a slight reduction of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.79; moderate-certainty evidence). Daclizumab (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.40 to 4.63; moderate-certainty evidence), fingolimod (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.57; moderate-certainty evidence), teriflunomide (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.79; moderate-certainty evidence), interferon beta-1a (OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.20; moderate-certainty evidence), laquinimod (OR 1.49, 95 % CI 1.00 to 2.15; moderate-certainty evidence), natalizumab (OR 1.57, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.05), and glatiramer acetate (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.14; moderate-certainty evidence) probably result in a slight increase in the number of people who discontinue treatment due to adverse events. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported in 35 studies (33,998 participants). There was probably a trivial reduction in SAEs amongst people with RRMS treated with interferon beta-1b as compared to placebo (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.54; moderate-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are highly confident that, compared to placebo, two-year treatment with natalizumab, cladribine, or alemtuzumab decreases relapses more than with other DMTs. We are moderately confident that a two-year treatment with natalizumab may slow disability progression. Compared to those on placebo, people with RRMS treated with most of the assessed DMTs showed a higher frequency of treatment discontinuation due to AEs: we are moderately confident that this could happen with fingolimod, teriflunomide, interferon beta-1a, laquinimod, natalizumab and daclizumab, while our certainty with other DMTs is lower. We are also moderately certain that treatment with alemtuzumab is associated with fewer discontinuations due to adverse events than placebo, and moderately certain that interferon beta-1b probably results in a slight reduction in people who experience serious adverse events, but our certainty with regard to other DMTs is lower. Insufficient evidence is available to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DMTs in a longer term than two years, and this is a relevant issue for a chronic condition like MS that develops over decades. More than half of the included studies were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and this may have influenced their results. Further studies should focus on direct comparison between active agents, with follow-up of at least three years, and assess other patient-relevant outcomes, such as quality of life and cognitive status, with particular focus on the impact of sex/gender on treatment effects.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Multiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-Remitting; Glatiramer Acetate; Interferon beta-1a; Fingolimod Hydrochloride; Natalizumab; Interferon beta-1b; Cladribine; Alemtuzumab; Dimethyl Fumarate; Daclizumab; Network Meta-Analysis; Immunologic Factors; Recurrence
PubMed: 38174776
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011381.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2023Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic disease of the central nervous system that affects mainly young adults (two to three times more frequently in women than in men) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic disease of the central nervous system that affects mainly young adults (two to three times more frequently in women than in men) and causes significant disability after onset. Although it is accepted that immunotherapies for people with MS decrease disease activity, uncertainty regarding their relative safety remains.
OBJECTIVES
To compare adverse effects of immunotherapies for people with MS or clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), and to rank these treatments according to their relative risks of adverse effects through network meta-analyses (NMAs).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, two other databases and trials registers up to March 2022, together with reference checking and citation searching to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included participants 18 years of age or older with a diagnosis of MS or CIS, according to any accepted diagnostic criteria, who were included in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined one or more of the agents used in MS or CIS, and compared them versus placebo or another active agent. We excluded RCTs in which a drug regimen was compared with a different regimen of the same drug without another active agent or placebo as a control arm.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods for data extraction and pairwise meta-analyses. For NMAs, we used the netmeta suite of commands in R to fit random-effects NMAs assuming a common between-study variance. We used the CINeMA platform to GRADE the certainty of the body of evidence in NMAs. We considered a relative risk (RR) of 1.5 as a non-inferiority safety threshold compared to placebo. We assessed the certainty of evidence for primary outcomes within the NMA according to GRADE, as very low, low, moderate or high.
MAIN RESULTS
This NMA included 123 trials with 57,682 participants Serious adverse events (SAEs) Reporting of SAEs was available from 84 studies including 5696 (11%) events in 51,833 (89.9%) participants out of 57,682 participants in all studies. Based on the absolute frequency of SAEs, our non-inferiority threshold (up to a 50% increased risk) meant that no more than 1 in 18 additional people would have a SAE compared to placebo. Low-certainty evidence suggested that three drugs may decrease SAEs compared to placebo (relative risk [RR], 95% confidence interval [CI]): interferon beta-1a (Avonex) (0.78, 0.66 to 0.94); dimethyl fumarate (0.79, 0.67 to 0.93), and glatiramer acetate (0.84, 0.72 to 0.98). Several drugs met our non-inferiority criterion versus placebo: moderate-certainty evidence for teriflunomide (1.08, 0.88 to 1.31); low-certainty evidence for ocrelizumab (0.85, 0.67 to 1.07), ozanimod (0.88, 0.59 to 1.33), interferon beta-1b (0.94, 0.78 to 1.12), interferon beta-1a (Rebif) (0.96, 0.80 to 1.15), natalizumab (0.97, 0.79 to 1.19), fingolimod (1.05, 0.92 to 1.20) and laquinimod (1.06, 0.83 to 1.34); very low-certainty evidence for daclizumab (0.83, 0.68 to 1.02). Non-inferiority with placebo was not met due to imprecision for the other drugs: low-certainty evidence for cladribine (1.10, 0.79 to 1.52), siponimod (1.20, 0.95 to 1.51), ofatumumab (1.26, 0.88 to 1.79) and rituximab (1.01, 0.67 to 1.52); very low-certainty evidence for immunoglobulins (1.05, 0.33 to 3.32), diroximel fumarate (1.05, 0.23 to 4.69), peg-interferon beta-1a (1.07, 0.66 to 1.74), alemtuzumab (1.16, 0.85 to 1.60), interferons (1.62, 0.21 to 12.72) and azathioprine (3.62, 0.76 to 17.19). Withdrawals due to adverse events Reporting of withdrawals due to AEs was available from 105 studies (85.4%) including 3537 (6.39%) events in 55,320 (95.9%) patients out of 57,682 patients in all studies. Based on the absolute frequency of withdrawals, our non-inferiority threshold (up to a 50% increased risk) meant that no more than 1 in 31 additional people would withdraw compared to placebo. No drug reduced withdrawals due to adverse events when compared with placebo. There was very low-certainty evidence (meaning that estimates are not reliable) that two drugs met our non-inferiority criterion versus placebo, assuming an upper 95% CI RR limit of 1.5: diroximel fumarate (0.38, 0.11 to 1.27) and alemtuzumab (0.63, 0.33 to 1.19). Non-inferiority with placebo was not met due to imprecision for the following drugs: low-certainty evidence for ofatumumab (1.50, 0.87 to 2.59); very low-certainty evidence for methotrexate (0.94, 0.02 to 46.70), corticosteroids (1.05, 0.16 to 7.14), ozanimod (1.06, 0.58 to 1.93), natalizumab (1.20, 0.77 to 1.85), ocrelizumab (1.32, 0.81 to 2.14), dimethyl fumarate (1.34, 0.96 to 1.86), siponimod (1.63, 0.96 to 2.79), rituximab (1.63, 0.53 to 5.00), cladribine (1.80, 0.89 to 3.62), mitoxantrone (2.11, 0.50 to 8.87), interferons (3.47, 0.95 to 12.72), and cyclophosphamide (3.86, 0.45 to 33.50). Eleven drugs may have increased withdrawals due to adverse events compared with placebo: low-certainty evidence for teriflunomide (1.37, 1.01 to 1.85), glatiramer acetate (1.76, 1.36 to 2.26), fingolimod (1.79, 1.40 to 2.28), interferon beta-1a (Rebif) (2.15, 1.58 to 2.93), daclizumab (2.19, 1.31 to 3.65) and interferon beta-1b (2.59, 1.87 to 3.77); very low-certainty evidence for laquinimod (1.42, 1.01 to 2.00), interferon beta-1a (Avonex) (1.54, 1.13 to 2.10), immunoglobulins (1.87, 1.01 to 3.45), peg-interferon beta-1a (3.46, 1.44 to 8.33) and azathioprine (6.95, 2.57 to 18.78); however, very low-certainty evidence is unreliable. Sensitivity analyses including only studies with low attrition bias, drug dose above the group median, or only patients with relapsing remitting MS or CIS, and subgroup analyses by prior disease-modifying treatments did not change these figures. Rankings No drug yielded consistent P scores in the upper quartile of the probability of being better than others for primary and secondary outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found mostly low and very low-certainty evidence that drugs used to treat MS may not increase SAEs, but may increase withdrawals compared with placebo. The results suggest that there is no important difference in the occurrence of SAEs between first- and second-line drugs and between oral, injectable, or infused drugs, compared with placebo. Our review, along with other work in the literature, confirms poor-quality reporting of adverse events from RCTs of interventions. At the least, future studies should follow the CONSORT recommendations about reporting harm-related issues. To address adverse effects, future systematic reviews should also include non-randomized studies.
Topics: Male; Female; Young Adult; Humans; Adolescent; Adult; Interferon beta-1a; Immunosuppressive Agents; Glatiramer Acetate; Network Meta-Analysis; Cladribine; Natalizumab; Interferon beta-1b; Alemtuzumab; Dimethyl Fumarate; Daclizumab; Azathioprine; Rituximab; Fingolimod Hydrochloride; Multiple Sclerosis; Immunotherapy
PubMed: 38032059
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012186.pub2 -
Viruses Nov 2023Acute hepatitis B infection is associated with severe liver disease and chronic sequelae in some cases. The purpose of this review was to determine the efficacy of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acute hepatitis B infection is associated with severe liver disease and chronic sequelae in some cases. The purpose of this review was to determine the efficacy of nucleoside analogues (NA) (lamivudine versus entecavir) compared to placebo or no intervention for treating acute primary HBV infection.
METHODS
A meta-analysis for drug intervention was performed, following a fixed-effect model. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized studies that evaluated the outcomes of NA in acute hepatitis B infection were included. The following outcomes were considered: virological cure (PCR negative), elimination of acute infection (seroconversion of HBsAg), mortality, and serious adverse events.
RESULTS
Five trials with 627 adult participants with severe acute hepatitis B defined by biochemical and serologic parameters were included. Virological cure did not favor any intervention: OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.7 ( = 0.90), I2 = 58%. Seroconversion of HBsAg to negative favored placebo/standard-of-care compared to lamivudine: OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.9 ( = 0.02), I2 = 31%. The only trial that compared entecavir and lamivudine favored entecavir over lamivudine (OR: 3.64, 95% CI 1.31-10.13; 90 participants). Adverse events were mild.
CONCLUSION
There is insufficient evidence that NA obtain superior efficacy compared with placebo/standard-of-care in patients with acute viral hepatitis, based on low quality evidence.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Lamivudine; Antiviral Agents; Hepatitis B Surface Antigens; Hepatitis B; Hepatitis B virus; Hepatitis B, Chronic; Treatment Outcome; DNA, Viral
PubMed: 38005918
DOI: 10.3390/v15112241 -
Medicine Nov 2023To ascertain the efficacy and safety of cladribine, cytarabine, and filgrastim-based regimen in relapsed or refractory (R/R) AML patients. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To ascertain the efficacy and safety of cladribine, cytarabine, and filgrastim-based regimen in relapsed or refractory (R/R) AML patients.
METHODS
Clinical studies were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase data. We selected available factors including complete remission (CR), overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) to evaluate the efficacy, and early death (ED), and adverse events to evaluate safety.
RESULTS
15 records with 812 R/R AML patients were finally included and analyzed using the R software. Subgroups analysis was also conducted. The pooled CR rate for CLAG regimen, CLAG-M regimen, and CLAG combined with any other drugs regimen is 56% (95% CI: 46-66), 46% (95% CI: 34-56), 44% (95% CI: 26-64), respectively. The relapsed and refractory groups showed a CR rate of 68% (95% CI: 53-80), and 51% (95% CI: 45-58) with CLAG related regimens. As risk grade decreases, the pooled CR rate increases. Regarding the safety for CLAG-related protocols, systematic review was conducted.
CONCLUSION
The CLAG-related regimen is an effective and safe therapy for R/R AML patients, CLAG seems to have more superiority than CLAG combined therapy, though further studies including cladribine combination treatment protocols, are still needed to confirm our results further.
Topics: Humans; Filgrastim; Cladribine; Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute; Remission Induction; Cytarabine; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor
PubMed: 37933074
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000034949