-
Scientific Reports Jan 2024We aimed to summarize the cancer risk among patients with indication of group I pharmaceuticals as stated in monographs presented by the International Agency for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
We aimed to summarize the cancer risk among patients with indication of group I pharmaceuticals as stated in monographs presented by the International Agency for Research on Cancer working groups. Following the PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted using the PubMed database. Pharmaceuticals with few studies on cancer risk were identified in systematic reviews; those with two or more studies were subjected to meta-analysis. For the meta-analysis, a random-effects model was used to calculate the summary relative risks (SRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Heterogeneity across studies was presented using the Higgins I square value from Cochran's Q test. Among the 12 group I pharmaceuticals selected, three involved a single study [etoposide, thiotepa, and mustargen + oncovin + procarbazine + prednisone (MOPP)], seven had two or more studies [busulfan, cyclosporine, azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, methoxsalen + ultraviolet (UV) radiation therapy, melphalan, and chlorambucil], and two did not have any studies [etoposide + bleomycin + cisplatin and treosulfan]. Cyclosporine and azathioprine reported increased skin cancer risk (SRR = 1.32, 95% CI 1.07-1.62; SRR = 1.56, 95% CI 1.25-1.93) compared to non-use. Cyclophosphamide increased bladder and hematologic cancer risk (SRR = 2.87, 95% CI 1.32-6.23; SRR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.65-3.58). Busulfan increased hematologic cancer risk (SRR = 6.71, 95% CI 2.49-18.08); melphalan was associated with hematologic cancer (SRR = 4.43, 95% CI 1.30-15.15). In the systematic review, methoxsalen + UV and MOPP were associated with an increased risk of skin and lung cancer, respectively. Our results can enhance persistent surveillance of group I pharmaceutical use, establish novel clinical strategies for patients with indications, and provide evidence for re-categorizing current group I pharmaceuticals into other groups.
Topics: Humans; Etoposide; Methoxsalen; Azathioprine; Melphalan; Busulfan; Neoplasms; Hematologic Neoplasms; Cyclophosphamide; Cyclosporins; Pharmaceutical Preparations
PubMed: 38172159
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-50602-6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Acute graft-versus-host disease (aGvHD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), occurring in 8% to 85% of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Acute graft-versus-host disease (aGvHD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), occurring in 8% to 85% of paediatric recipients. Currently, the therapeutic mainstay for aGvHD is treatment with corticosteroids. However, there is no established standard treatment for steroid-refractory aGvHD. Extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) is a type of immunomodulatory method amongst different therapeutic options that involves ex vivo collection of peripheral mononuclear cells, exposure to the photoactive agent 8-methoxypsoralen and ultraviolet-A radiation, and reinfusion of these treated blood cells to the patient. The mechanisms of action of ECP are not completely understood. This is the second update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2014 and updated in 2015.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ECP for the management of aGvHD in children and adolescents after HSCT.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed) and Embase (Ovid) databases from their inception to 25 January 2021. We searched the reference lists of potentially relevant studies without any language restrictions. We searched five conference proceedings and nine clinical trial registries on 9 November 2020 and 12 November 2020, respectively.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ECP with or without standard treatment versus standard treatment alone in children and adolescents with aGvHD after HSCT.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed the study selection. We resolved disagreement in the selection of trials by consultation with a third review author.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified no additional studies in the 2021 review update, so there are still no studies that meet the criteria for inclusion in this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The efficacy of ECP in the treatment of aGvHD in children and adolescents after HSCT is unknown, and its use should be restricted to within the context of RCTs. Such studies should address a comparison of ECP alone or in combination with standard treatment versus standard treatment alone. The 2021 review update brought about no additions to these conclusions.
Topics: Adolescent; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Child; Graft vs Host Disease; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Methoxsalen; Photopheresis; Steroids
PubMed: 36166494
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009759.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2022Chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGvHD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation, occurring in 6% to 65% of the... (Review)
Review
Extracorporeal photopheresis versus alternative treatment for chronic graft-versus-host disease after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation in children and adolescents.
BACKGROUND
Chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGvHD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation, occurring in 6% to 65% of the paediatric recipients. Currently, the therapeutic mainstay for cGvHD is treatment with corticosteroids, frequently combined with other immunosuppressive agents in people with steroid-refractory manifestations. There is no established standard treatment for steroid-refractory cGvHD. The therapeutic options for these patients include extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP), an immunomodulatory treatment that involves ex vivo collection of mononuclear cells from peripheral blood, exposure to the photoactive agent 8-methoxypsoralen, ultraviolet radiation and re-infusion of the processed cell product. The mechanisms of action of ECP are not completely understood. This is the second update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2014 and first updated in 2015.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ECP for the management of cGvHD in children and adolescents after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2021), MEDLINE (PubMed) and Embase databases from their inception to 25 January 2021. We searched the reference lists of potentially relevant studies without any language restrictions. We searched five conference proceedings and nine clinical trial registries on 9 November 2020 and 12 November 2020, respectively.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We aimed to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ECP with or without alternative treatment versus alternative treatment alone in children and adolescents with cGvHD after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed the study selection. We resolved disagreements in the selection of trials by consultation with a third review author.
MAIN RESULTS
We found no studies meeting the criteria for inclusion in this 2021 review update.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We could not evaluate the efficacy of ECP in the treatment of cGvHD in children and adolescents after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation since the second review update again found no RCTs. Current recommendations are based on retrospective or observational studies only. Thus, ideally, ECP should be applied in the context of controlled trials only. However, performing RCTs in this population will be challenging due to the limited number of eligible participants, variable disease presentation and the lack of well-defined response criteria. International collaboration, multicentre trials and appropriate funding for such trials will be needed. If treatment decisions based on clinical data are made in favour of ECP, recipients should be carefully monitored for beneficial and harmful effects. In addition, efforts should be made to share this information with other clinicians, for example by setting up registries for children and adolescents treated with ECP.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Chronic Disease; Graft vs Host Disease; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Methoxsalen; Photopheresis; Steroids
PubMed: 35679154
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009898.pub4