-
International Ophthalmology Apr 2024To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of various treatment modalities in patients with diabetic retinopathy (DR) who underwent cataract surgery. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of various treatment modalities in patients with diabetic retinopathy (DR) who underwent cataract surgery.
METHODS
A comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CNKI databases up to December 22, 2021. The safety and efficacy of treatment modalities were assessed using the risk ratio (RR) to compare the progression of DR and the mean difference to evaluate the best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and macular thickness (MT).
RESULTS
The meta-analysis of the RCTs revealed that anti-VEGF (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor) drugs significantly reduced the progression of DR [RR: 0.37 (95%CI 0.19, 0.70), P = 0.002] and improved BCVA [mean difference = - 0.06 (- 0.12, - 0.01), P = 0.03] in patients with pre-existing DR who underwent cataract surgery. Steroid drugs also showed a significant reduction in macular thickness [mean difference = - 55.63 (- 90.73, - 20.53), I = 56%, P = 0.002] in DR patients two weeks after cataract surgery compared to the control group. The safety profiles of different management options did not differ significantly.
CONCLUSION
The present meta-analysis suggests that anti-VEGF drugs can effectively slow down the progression of diabetic retinopathy, improve BCVA, and reduce MT in DR patients who underwent cataract surgery. Steroid drugs also show promise in reducing MT. However, further studies with larger sample sizes are required to compare the efficacy and safety of different management options in a multi-center clinical setting.
Topics: Humans; Diabetic Retinopathy; Ranibizumab; Bevacizumab; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Macular Edema; Steroids; Cataract; Diabetes Mellitus
PubMed: 38557801
DOI: 10.1007/s10792-024-02981-6 -
Journal of Gastrointestinal and Liver... Mar 2024Systemic therapy is mainly recommended for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Considering the variety of treatments available for HCC, there is a need to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Systemic therapy is mainly recommended for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Considering the variety of treatments available for HCC, there is a need to understand their relative benefits and risks, especially for the newly approved combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors and vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors represented by atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab. A reticulated meta-analysis was used to evaluate the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab-bevacizumab combination therapy compared with other first-line systemic therapies for the treatment of patients advanced HCC.
METHODS
PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched from the time of library construction to 01 December 2022, and the data were extracted and analyzed using Stata16.0 for Meta-analysis. The data were extracted separately, and a meta-analysis was performed using the software Stata16.0.
RESULTS
16 clinical studies with 8,779 subjects were identified from 13,417 records and were used to build the evidence network for all trials. TThe combination therapy of atezolizumab and bevacizumab has the advantage of prolonging the OS of patients when treating advanced HCC [HR=5.71, 95%CI (4.30, 7.12), p<0.05] Also, the combination therapy has the advantage of prolonging the patient's progression free survival [HR=1.60, 95%CI (0.89, 2.49), p<0.05].
CONCLUSIONS
Atezolizumab-bevacizumab combination therapy can improve clinical outcomes such as OS and PFS in patients with advanced HCC.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Network Meta-Analysis; Bevacizumab; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Liver Neoplasms
PubMed: 38554414
DOI: 10.15403/jgld-5289 -
Expert Review of Clinical Immunology Jul 2024The advent of biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) have transformed the management of immune-mediated rheumatic diseases,... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The advent of biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) have transformed the management of immune-mediated rheumatic diseases, including spondylarthritis (SpA). However, the data about combining b/ts DMARDs in the treatment of SpA are scarce. The study objectives were to assess the efficacy and safety of combination b/tsDMARD in SpA.
METHODS
We conducted systematic literature review (PubMed and Medline) with two independent reviewers, one adjudicator, exploring the efficacy and safety of combination b/tsDMARDs in the treatment of SpA. Inclusion criteria were studies published in last 20 years, English language, interventions included use of two b/tsDMARDs, and minimal three-month follow-up.
RESULTS
Out of 1936 initial hits, 28 manuscripts fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Two were randomized controlled trials, and the remaining were retrospective cohort studies or case series. Combination of apremilast with bDMARD, or TNF inhibitor plus IL12/23 inhibitor were the commonest and reported good efficacy with no increased safety signal.
CONCLUSIONS
There is not enough data to fully evaluate efficacy and safety of combination b/tsDMARDs in SpA treatment. Limited information shows apremilast plus bDMARD, or TNF inhibitor plus IL12/23 inhibitor combination to be efficacious and safe. Randomized controlled trials and larger cohort with a longer follow-up are required.
Topics: Humans; Antirheumatic Agents; Biological Products; Spondylarthritis; Drug Therapy, Combination; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thalidomide; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38512065
DOI: 10.1080/1744666X.2024.2327589 -
Survey of Ophthalmology 2024Post-operative cystoid macular edema (PCME) is an important complication following intraocular surgery that often resolves spontaneously without treatment. In some... (Review)
Review
Post-operative cystoid macular edema (PCME) is an important complication following intraocular surgery that often resolves spontaneously without treatment. In some cases, PCME may persist despite initial medical therapy, which can adversely impact visual outcomes. Various topical, intraocular and systemic treatments exist for the prevention and management of cystoid macular edema; however, there is no consensus on treatment of refractory cases in the postoperative setting. In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, we systematically reviewed 68 articles describing management options and their outcomes for treatment-resistant cases of PCME. The most commonly reported treatments included steroid (39 studies) and biological-based (17 studies) therapies. We provide an overview of the treatment options for refractory PCME.
Topics: Macular Edema; Humans; Postoperative Complications; Glucocorticoids; Visual Acuity; Tomography, Optical Coherence; Disease Management; Angiogenesis Inhibitors
PubMed: 38490455
DOI: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2024.03.005 -
Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer Jun 2024Atezolizumab (ATZ) plus bevacizumab (BVC) co-administration is one of the newest systemic interventions in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (AHCC). This treatment... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Atezolizumab (ATZ) plus bevacizumab (BVC) co-administration is one of the newest systemic interventions in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (AHCC). This treatment approach is more costly and effective than other therapeutic interventions, significantly improving AHCC survival and health-related quality of life.
AIM
This economic study aimed to systematically review all cost-effectiveness analyses of ATZ/BVC combination in AHCC.
METHOD
A comprehensive search in scientific databases was performed using a highly sensitive syntax to find all related economic evaluations. The target population was AHCC patients. The intervention was ATZ/BVC, which was compared with sorafenib, nivolumab, and other anticancer strategies. We included studies that reported quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and/or life-years, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and finally, the characteristics of included studies were categorized.
RESULTS
Out of 315 identified records, 12 cost-effectiveness analyses were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. Treatment costs were significantly higher with ATZ/BVC in all studies (from 61,397 to 253,687 USD/patient compared to sorafenib and nivolumab, respectively). Incremental QALYs/patient varied from 0.35 to 0.86 compared to sintilimab/BVC and sorafenib. Although ICERs for drugs varied widely, all were united in the lack of cost-effectiveness of the ATZ/BVC. The willingness-to-pay threshold in all studies was lower than the ICER, which indicated a reluctance to pay for this treatment strategy by the health systems.
CONCLUSION
The ATZ/BVC combination is an expensive targeted immunotherapy in AHCC. Significant discounts in ATZ and BVC prices are essential for this novel approach to be cost-effective and extensively used.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Liver Neoplasms; Bevacizumab; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Quality-Adjusted Life Years
PubMed: 38488933
DOI: 10.1007/s12029-024-01038-2 -
American Journal of Hematology Jun 2024Thrombosis represents a frequent and potentially severe complication in individuals diagnosed with multiple myeloma (MM). These events can be driven by both the disease... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study
Thromboembolic risk of carfilzomib or bortezomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: A comparative systematic review and meta-analysis.
Thrombosis represents a frequent and potentially severe complication in individuals diagnosed with multiple myeloma (MM). These events can be driven by both the disease as well as the therapies themselves. Overall, available evidence is inconclusive about the differential thrombogenicity of carfilzomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (KRd) and bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (VRd). This meta-analysis compares the risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE; including deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism) and arterial thromboembolism (ATE; including myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke) with KRd versus VRd as primary therapy for newly diagnosed MM (NDMM). Out of 510 studies identified after deduplication, one randomized controlled trial and five retrospective cohort studies were included. We analyzed 2304 patients (VRd: 1380; KRd: 924) for VTE events and 2179 patients (VRd: 1316; KRd: 863) for ATE events. Lower rates of VTE were observed in the VRd group when compared with the KRd group (6.16% vs. 8.87%; odds ratio [OR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.88; p = .01). Both treatment groups exhibited minimal ATE incidence, with no significant difference between them (0.91% vs. 1.16%; OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.24-4.20; p = .99). In view of potential biases from retrospective studies, heterogeneity of baseline population characteristics, and limited access to patient-level data (e.g., VTE risk stratification and type of thromboprophylaxis regimen used) inherent to this meta-analysis, additional research is warranted to further validate our findings and refine strategies for thrombosis prevention in MM.
Topics: Humans; Multiple Myeloma; Dexamethasone; Oligopeptides; Bortezomib; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Lenalidomide; Thromboembolism; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 38488702
DOI: 10.1002/ajh.27288 -
Eye (London, England) Jun 2024To assess the methodological quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) for the diagnosis and management of Retinal Vein Occlusion (RVO).
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES
To assess the methodological quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) for the diagnosis and management of Retinal Vein Occlusion (RVO).
METHODS
A systematic review of CPGs for the diagnosis and management of RVO was carried out with a search in databases, metasearch engines, CPG development institutions, ophthalmology associations and CPG repositories until April 2022. Search update was performed on April 2023, with no new record available. Five CPGs published in the last 10 years in English/Spanish were selected, and 5 authors evaluated them independently, using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE-II) instrument. An individual assessment of each CPG by domain (AGREE-II), an overall assessment of the guide, and its use with or without modifications were performed. Additionally, a meta-synthesis of the recommendations for the most relevant outcomes was carried out.
RESULTS
The lowest score (mean 18.8%) was for domain 5 'applicability', and the highest score (mean 62%) was for domain 4 'clarity of presentation'. The 2019 American guideline (PPP) presented the best score (40.4%) in domain 3 'rigour of development'. When evaluating the overall quality of the CPGs analysed, all CPGs could be recommended with modifications. In the meta-synthesis, anti-VEGF therapy is the first-choice therapy for macular oedema associated with RVO, but there is no clear recommendation about the type of anti-VEGF therapy to choose. Recommendations for diagnosis and follow-up are similar among the CPGs appraised.
CONCLUSION
Most CPGs for the diagnosis and management of RVO have a low methodological quality assessed according to the AGREE-II. PPP has the higher score in the domain 'rigour of development'. Among the CPGs appraised, there is no clear recommendation on the type of anti-VEGF therapy to choose.
Topics: Retinal Vein Occlusion; Humans; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Intravitreal Injections; Disease Management; Ophthalmology
PubMed: 38467863
DOI: 10.1038/s41433-024-03008-1 -
American Journal of Ophthalmology Jul 2024This study aims to appraise the therapeutic effectiveness of intravitreal injections anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) vs alternative therapies in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
This study aims to appraise the therapeutic effectiveness of intravitreal injections anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) vs alternative therapies in managing radiation retinopathy (RR).
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
We obtained comprehensive data retrieval using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library from their inception until December 15, 2023. This review included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies (NRSs) reporting on best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) among RR patients treated with intravitreal anti-VEGF. Study selection and data extraction were meticulously performed by 2 independent reviewers. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 (RoB 2.0) and Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) scales were utilized for bias risk assessment. Quantification of heterogeneity was executed using Q, H, and I statistics. The primary endpoint was the BCVA at the final observation point of each study. Secondary endpoints included central retinal thickness (CRT), foveal avascular zone (FAZ) area, and capillary density (CD) at the level of superficial capillary plexus. Subgroup analyses were undertaken to explore potential heterogeneity sources possibly due to treatment duration and study design. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to ascertain result stability.
RESULTS
This analysis incorporated 7 studies (including 3 RCTs) encompassing 922 patients afflicted with RR. Relative to other treatment modalities, intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy was associated with a statistically significant mean decrease in BCVA of -0.34 logMAR (95% CI, -0.39 to -0.30 logMAR; I = 87.70%; P < .001), and a substantial reduction in CRT of -34.65 µm (95% CI, -50.70 to -18.60 µm; I = 30.40%; P < .001). Additionally, a reduction in the FAZ area by -0.69 mm² (95% CI, -0.91 to -0.46 mm², I = 0%; P < .001) was observed. A positive tendency was noted in CD at the superficial capillary plexus between anti-VEGF and other therapeutic interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
Intravitreal anti-VEGF injections, in comparison to other treatments, demonstrate superior efficacy in enhancing BCVA and reducing CRT, thereby underscoring the potential of anti-VEGF in ameliorating radiation retinopathy outcomes. However, the conclusions are constrained by the incorporation of data from some NRSs and the small sample sizes.
Topics: Humans; Intravitreal Injections; Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Radiation Injuries; Visual Acuity; Retinal Diseases; Treatment Outcome; Tomography, Optical Coherence
PubMed: 38458409
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2024.02.038 -
Skin Research and Technology : Official... Mar 2024The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness and safety of oral and injectable systemic treatments, such as methotrexate, azathioprine, cyclosporine,... (Review)
Review
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness and safety of oral and injectable systemic treatments, such as methotrexate, azathioprine, cyclosporine, tofacitinib, baricitinib, corticosteroids, statins, zinc, apremilast, etc., for treating vitiligo lesions.
METHOD
Databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were meticulously searched for studies spanning from 2010 to August 2023, focusing on systemic oral and injectable therapies for vitiligo, using comprehensive keywords and search syntaxes tailored to each database. Key data extracted included study design, treatment efficacy, patient outcomes, patient satisfaction, and safety profiles.
RESULTS
In a total of 42 included studies, oral mini-pulse corticosteroid therapy (OMP) was the subject of six studies (14.2%). Minocycline was the focus of five studies (11.9%), while methotrexate, apremilast, and tofacitinib each were examined in four studies (9.5%). Antioxidants and Afamelanotide were the subjects of three studies each (7.1%). Cyclosporine, simvastatin, oral zinc, oral corticosteroids (excluding OMP) and injections, and baricitinib were each explored in two studies (4.8%). Azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, and Alefacept were the subjects of one study each (2.4%).
CONCLUSION
Systemic treatments for vitiligo have been successful in controlling lesions without notable side effects. OMP, Methotrexate, Azathioprine, Cyclosporine, Mycophenolate mofetil, Simvastatin, Apremilast, Minocycline, Afamelanotide, Tofacitinib, Baricitinib, Antioxidants, and oral/injectable corticosteroids are effective treatment methods. However, oral zinc and alefacept did not show effectiveness.
Topics: Humans; Methotrexate; Azathioprine; Vitiligo; Mycophenolic Acid; Minocycline; Alefacept; Cyclosporine; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Hypopigmentation; Simvastatin; Zinc; Purines; Pyrazoles; Sulfonamides; Azetidines; Thalidomide
PubMed: 38454597
DOI: 10.1111/srt.13642 -
BMJ Open Mar 2024To compare the efficacy and safety of different anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents combined with different delivery methods for neovascular glaucoma... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative efficacy and safety of different anti-VEGF agents combined with different delivery methods for neovascular glaucoma: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy and safety of different anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents combined with different delivery methods for neovascular glaucoma (NVG).
DESIGN
Systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA).
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN and Chinese databases including the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Science Periodical Database (Wanfang Database), VIP Journal Integration Platform and China Biology Medicine Database were searched from inception to 5 September 2022.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the treatment of NVG using different anti-VEGF agents combined with various methods of drug administration, without any language limitations. All patients included underwent panretinal laser photocoagulation and there were no restrictions on prior glaucoma surgery.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Random-effect Bayesian NMA was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety and rank priority of anti-VEGF regimens. The source of heterogeneity and the related factors affecting the stability of the results were also explored. CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis) was used to assess the certainty of evidence.
RESULTS
Our analysis included 17 RCTs involving a total of 1311 eyes from 1228 patients. We examined five different treatment regimens, which used three different anti-VEGF drugs. The following treatments showed a significant decrease in intraocular pressure (IOP) compared with the control group at 1 month after glaucoma surgery: simultaneous intravitreal and intracameral injection of conbercept (ICCIVC) (mean difference (MD)=-11.56, 95% credible interval (CrI) -20.8 to -2.24), intravitreal injection of conbercept (MD=-8.88, 95% CrI -13.93 to -3.78), intravitreal injection of ranibizumab (MD=-7.62, 95% CrI -10.91 to -4.33) and intravitreal injection of bevacizumab IVB) (MD=-5.51, 95% CrI -10.79 to -0.35). The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) analysis indicated that ICCIVC (82.0%) may be the most effective regimen in reducing IOP. In terms of safety, there were no statistically significant differences among the interventions. According to the SUCRA analysis, ICCIVC (68.0%) was considered the safest choice with the fewest complications. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses showed that mean age was the main source of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated the robustness of the study results.
CONCLUSION
ICCIVC was more effective and safer than other anti-VEGF regimens for NVG. Simultaneous intravitreal and intracameral injection was found to be the best route of administration, and conbercept was found to be the superior drug selection when compared with ranibizumab and bevacizumab.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42022309676.
Topics: Humans; Glaucoma, Neovascular; Bevacizumab; Network Meta-Analysis; Ranibizumab; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factors; Glaucoma
PubMed: 38443085
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-080103