-
RMD Open Apr 2020To compare improvement in pain and physical function for patients treated with baricitinib, adalimumab, tocilizumab and tofacitinib monotherapy from randomised,... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
Comparative effectiveness of improvement in pain and physical function for baricitinib versus adalimumab, tocilizumab and tofacitinib monotherapies in rheumatoid arthritis patients who are naïve to treatment with biologic or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a...
OBJECTIVE
To compare improvement in pain and physical function for patients treated with baricitinib, adalimumab, tocilizumab and tofacitinib monotherapy from randomised, methotrexate (MTX)-controlled trials in conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs)/biologic (bDMARD)-naïve RA patients using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs).
METHODS
Data were from Phase III trials on patients receiving monotherapy baricitinib, tocilizumab, adalimumab, tofacitinib or MTX. Pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale (0-100 mm) and physical function using the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI). An MAIC based on treatment-arm matching, an MAIC with study-level matching and Bucher's method without matching compared change in outcomes between therapies. Matching variables included age, gender, baseline disease activity and baseline value of outcome measure.
RESULTS
With all methods, greater improvements were observed in pain and HAQ-DI at 6 months for baricitinib compared with adalimumab and tocilizumab (<0.05). Differences in treatment effects (TEs) favouring baricitinib for pain VAS for treatment-arm matching, study-level matching and Bucher's method, respectively, were -12, -12 and -12 for baricitinib versus adalimumab and -7, -7 and -9 for baricitinib versus tocilizumab; the difference in TEs for HAQ-DI was -0.28, -0.28 and -0.30 for adalimumab and -0.23, -0.23 and -0.26 for tocilizumab. For baricitinib versus tofacitinib, no statistically significant differences for pain improvement were observed except with one of the three methods (Bucher method) and none for HAQ-DI.
CONCLUSIONS
Results suggest greater pain reduction and improved physical function for baricitinib monotherapy compared with tocilizumab and adalimumab monotherapy. No statistically significant differences in pain reduction and improved physical function were observed between baricitinib and tofacitinib with the MAIC analyses.
Topics: Adalimumab; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Azetidines; Biological Products; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Disability Evaluation; Humans; Methotrexate; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain; Pain Measurement; Piperidines; Purines; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sulfonamides; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32371431
DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2019-001131 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2020This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2018. The incidence of seizures following supratentorial craniotomy for non-traumatic pathology...
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2018. The incidence of seizures following supratentorial craniotomy for non-traumatic pathology has been estimated to be between 15% to 20%; however, the risk of experiencing a seizure appears to vary from 3% to 92% over a five-year period. Postoperative seizures can precipitate the development of epilepsy; seizures are most likely to occur within the first month of cranial surgery. The use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) administered pre- or postoperatively to prevent seizures following cranial surgery has been investigated in a number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of AEDs when used prophylactically in people undergoing craniotomy and to examine which AEDs are most effective.
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update we searched the following databases on 29 September 2019: Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not apply any language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs of people with no history of epilepsy who were undergoing craniotomy for either therapeutic or diagnostic reasons. We included trials with adequate randomisation methods and concealment; these could either be blinded or unblinded parallel trials. We did not stipulate a minimum treatment period, and we included trials using active drugs or placebo as a control group.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors (JW, JG, YD) independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We resolved any disagreements through discussion. Outcomes investigated included the number of participants experiencing seizures (early (occurring within first week following craniotomy), and late (occurring after first week following craniotomy)), the number of deaths and the number of people experiencing disability and adverse effects. Due to the heterogeneous nature of the trials, we did not combine data from the included trials in a meta-analysis; we presented the findings of the review in narrative format. Visual comparisons of outcomes are presented in forest plots.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 RCTs (N = 1815), which were published between 1983 and 2015. Three trials compared a single AED (phenytoin) with placebo or no treatment. One, three-armed trial compared two AEDs (phenytoin, carbamazepine) with no treatment. A second three-armed trial compared phenytoin, phenobarbital with no treatment. Of these five trials comparing AEDs with placebo or no treatment, two trials reported a statistically significant advantage for AED treatment compared to controls for early seizure occurrence; all other comparisons showed no clear or statistically significant differences between AEDs and control treatment. None of the trials that were head-to-head comparisons of AEDs (phenytoin versus sodium valproate, phenytoin versus phenobarbital, levetiracetam versus phenytoin, zonisamide versus phenobarbital) reported any statistically significant differences between treatments for either early or late seizure occurrence. Only five trials reported incidences of death. One trial reported statistically significantly fewer deaths in the carbamazepine and no-treatment groups compared with the phenytoin group after 24 months of treatment, but not after six months of treatment. Incidences of adverse effects of treatment were poorly reported; however, three trials did show that significantly more adverse events occurred on phenytoin compared to valproate, placebo, or no treatment. No trials reported any results relating to functional outcomes such as disability. We considered the evidence to be of low certainty for all reported outcomes due to methodological issues and variability of comparisons made in the trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is limited, low-certainly evidence to suggest that AED treatment administered prophylactically is either effective or not effective in the prevention of postcraniotomy (early or late) seizures. The current evidence base is limited due to the different methodologies employed in the trials and inconsistencies in the reporting of outcomes including deaths and adverse events. Further evidence from good-quality, contemporary trials is required in order to assess the clinical effectiveness of prophylactic AED treatment compared to placebo or no treatment, or other AEDs in preventing postcraniotomy seizures in this select group of patients.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Carbamazepine; Craniotomy; Humans; Isoxazoles; Levetiracetam; Phenobarbital; Phenytoin; Piracetam; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures; Valproic Acid; Zonisamide
PubMed: 32343399
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007286.pub5 -
Cancer May 2020The goal of this study was to characterize the efficacy and safety of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) versus conventionally fractionated radiation therapy... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Conventionally fractionated radiation therapy versus stereotactic body radiation therapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (CRiSP): An international systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The goal of this study was to characterize the efficacy and safety of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) versus conventionally fractionated radiation therapy with concurrent chemotherapy (CFRT) for the definitive treatment of locally advanced pancreatic cancer. The primary outcome measure was efficacy, defined by 2-year overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were incidence of any grade 3/4 toxicity and 1-year OS.
METHODS
A PICOS/PRISMA/MOOSE selection protocol was used to identify eligible studies. Inclusion criteria were: 1) patients diagnosed with locally advanced N0-1 M0 pancreatic cancer; 2) CFRT 1.8 to 2.0 Gy/fraction with chemotherapy per protocol or SBRT ≥5 Gy/fraction in ≤5 fractions; 3) either no control group or another definitive chemotherapy or radiation therapy arm; 4) at least 1 of the outcome measures reported; and 5) single or multi-arm phase 2/3 prospective study for CFRT and/or phase 1/2 or retrospective study for SBRT. Neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant chemotherapy was prescribed per protocol specifications. Weighted random effects meta-analyses were conducted using the DerSimonian and Laird method to characterize summary effect sizes for each outcome.
RESULTS
A total of 470 studies were initially screened; of these, 9 studies assessed SBRT and 11 studies assessed CFRT. For SBRT, the median dose was 30 Gy, and the most common regimen was 30 Gy/5 fractions. For CFRT, doses ranged from 45 to 54 Gy in 1.8- to 2.0-Gy fractions, with the majority of studies delivering 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions with concurrent gemcitabine. The random effects estimate for 2-year OS was 26.9% (95% CI, 20.6%-33.6%) for SBRT versus 13.7% (95% CI, 8.9%-19.3%) for CFRT and was statistically significant in favor of SBRT. The random effects estimate for 1-year OS was 53.7% (95% CI, 39.3%-67.9%) for SBRT versus 49.3% (95% CI, 39.3%-59.4%) for CFRT, and was not statistically significant. The random effects estimate for acute grade 3/4 toxicity was 5.6% (95% CI, 0.0%-20.0%) for SBRT versus 37.7% (95% CI, 24.0%-52.5%) for CFRT and was statistically significant in favor of SBRT. The random effects estimate for late grade 3/4 toxicity was 9.0% for SBRT (95% CI, 3.3%-17.1%) versus 10.1% (95% CI, 1.8%-23.8%) for CFRT, which was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION
These results suggest that SBRT for LAPC may result in a modest improvement in 2-year OS with decreased rates of acute grade 3/4 toxicity and no change in 1-year-OS or late toxicity. Further study into the use of stereotactic body radiation therapy for these patients is needed.
Topics: Chemoradiotherapy; Deoxycytidine; Dose Fractionation, Radiation; Female; Humans; Kaplan-Meier Estimate; Male; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Prospective Studies; Radiosurgery; Retrospective Studies; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 32125712
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.32756 -
BioMed Research International 2019Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are modern treatments for chronic hepatitis C infection, but majority of available evidence on its treatment effect covers genotypes 1 to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are modern treatments for chronic hepatitis C infection, but majority of available evidence on its treatment effect covers genotypes 1 to 4. Therefore, the efficacy and safety of DAAs for genotypes 5 and 6 need to be analysed. Studies were identified from Medline, Scopus, and CENTRAL and a Chinese database CNKI, from inception until Dec 4, 2018. Clinical trials were included if they enrolled patients with genotypes 5 and/or 6 infection, any type of second-generation DAAs was studied, and sustained virological response was assessed at the 12 week after treatment (SVR12) as outcome measure. Meta-analysis using statistical program was applied for pooling proportions if data were sufficient (i.e., at least 2 studies). Thirteen studies were included in the analysis. Four studies assessed the efficacy of four DAA regimens in genotype 5 patients, which were mainly sofosbuvir (SOF) plus pegylated-interferon/ribavirin (PR) or other DAAs, with SVR12 ranging from 94.4% to 100%. Twelve studies assessed the efficacy of seven DAA regimens among genotype 6 patients, but only two DAA regimens (i.e., SOF + PR and SOF/ledipasvir) had sufficient data for pooling. The pooled SVR12 rates (95% CI) were 99.6% (92.2 to 100) for SOF + PR and 99.2% (96.5 to 100) for SOF/ledipasvir. No treatment-related serious adverse event was reported, while the nonserious adverse events were comparable to other genotypes. In conclusion, DAAs are effective and may be safe for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C genotypes 5 and 6. However, our evidence is based on noncomparative studies; hence, further larger-scale randomized controlled trials in these genotypes are still required.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Benzimidazoles; Databases, Factual; Drug Therapy, Combination; Fluorenes; Genotype; Hepacivirus; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Humans; Interferons; Ribavirin; Sofosbuvir; Uridine Monophosphate
PubMed: 31815126
DOI: 10.1155/2019/2301291 -
Medical Science Monitor : International... Dec 2019BACKGROUND This study aimed to conduct a systematic review of the literature to identify key randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), followed by network... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison of Regorafenib, Fruquintinib, and TAS-102 in Previously Treated Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Five Clinical Trials.
BACKGROUND This study aimed to conduct a systematic review of the literature to identify key randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), followed by network meta-analysis, to compare the efficacy and safety profiles of regorafenib, fruquintinib, and TAS-102 in previously treated patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma (mCRC). MATERIAL AND METHODS Systematic literature review was performed using the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library online databases to identify published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and the odds ratios (ORs) for the objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and fatal adverse events (FAEs) were compared indirectly using network meta-analysis based on a random-effects model. RESULTS Five RCTs that included 2,604 patients fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were analyzed. Indirect comparisons showed that fruquintinib was associated with significant superiority for PFS (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.34-0.95) and DCR (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.08-3.01) when compared with TAS-102 in patients with mCRC. However, there was no significant difference between OS or ORR between regorafenib, fruquintinib, and TAS-102. Fruquintinib was associated with a significantly higher risk of SAEs when compared with TAS-102 or regorafenib. There was no significant difference in the risk of AEs or FAEs following indirect comparison between fruquintinib, regorafenib, and TAS-102. CONCLUSIONS The findings from network meta-analysis showed that fruquintinib was associated with significant superiority for PFS and DCR compared with TAS-102, but fruquintinib was associated with significantly increased risk for SAEs compared with regorafenib and TAS-102.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Benzofurans; Colonic Neoplasms; Colorectal Neoplasms; Disease-Free Survival; Drug Combinations; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Phenylurea Compounds; Pyridines; Pyrrolidines; Quinazolines; Rectal Neoplasms; Thymine; Trifluridine; Uracil
PubMed: 31790382
DOI: 10.12659/MSM.918411 -
Clinical Therapeutics Nov 2019Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare subtype of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma that can be either aggressive or indolent. Although MCL usually responds well to initial... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
PURPOSE
Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare subtype of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma that can be either aggressive or indolent. Although MCL usually responds well to initial treatment with chemotherapy-based regimens, the disease often relapses or becomes refractory within a few years. Acalabrutinib is a highly selective, potent, covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor with minimal off-target activity. WIthout head-to-head clinical trial data, estimation of the comparative efficacy and safety of new therapeutic entities provides valuable information for patients, clinicians, and health care payers. The objective of this analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of acalabrutinib versus other targeted therapies employed for the treatment of relapsed/refractory MCL by using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons.
METHODS
Individual data from 124 patients treated with acalabrutinib in the Phase II ACE-LY-004 trial were adjusted to match average baseline characteristics of populations from studies using alternative targeted treatment regimens for relapsed/refractory MCL (for monotherapy: ibrutinib, bortezomib, lenalidomide, and temsirolimus; for combination therapies: ibrutinib + rituximab, bendamustine + rituximab, and lenalidomide + rituximab). Patient populations were matched on age, sex, race, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, Simplified MCL International Prognostic Index score, tumor bulk, lactate dehydrogenase concentration, extranodal disease, bone marrow involvement, and number of previous treatment regimens. Outcomes assessed included overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR) rate, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events.
FINDINGS
After matching, acalabrutinib was associated with significant increases in ORR and CR rate (estimated treatment difference [95% CI]) versus ibrutinib (ORR, 9.3% [0.3-18.3]; CR, 14.9% [5.4-24.3]), bortezomib (ORR, 50.6% [40.2-61.0]; CR, 18.8% [9.1-28.5]), lenalidomide (ORR, 38.1% [27.1-49.1]; CR, 43.5% [34.8-52.3]), and temsirolimus (ORR, 40.7% [31.0-50.4]; CR, 27.1% [19.2-35.0]). PFS (hazard ratio [95% CI]) with acalabrutinib was significantly increased versus bortezomib (0.36 [0.26-0.51]), lenalidomide (0.65 [0.48-0.89]), lenalidomide + rituximab (0.57 [0.35-0.93]), and temsirolimus (0.33 [0.24-0.45]). Acalabrutinib was associated with significantly increased OS (hazard ratio) versus bortezomib (0.36 [0.22-0.61]) and temsirolimus (0.32 [0.23-0.44]). The overall safety profile of acalabrutinib was similar or better compared with the monotherapies; however, infection risk increased versus bendamustine + rituximab, and anemia increased risk versus lenalidomide + rituximab and ibrutinib + rituximab.
IMPLICATIONS
This comparison of targeted therapies used in the treatment of relapsed/refractory MCL showed that acalabrutinib has the potential to provide increased response rates, with trends for increased PFS and OS, and an improved safety profile.
Topics: Adenine; Antineoplastic Agents; Benzamides; Bortezomib; Humans; Lenalidomide; Lymphoma, Mantle-Cell; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Piperidines; Pyrazines; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines; Rituximab; Sirolimus; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31699438
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2019.09.012 -
Medicine Aug 2019Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a rare hematological malignancy classified in the non-Hodgkin's lymphoma category. Ibrutinib, a first-in-class Bruton tyrosine... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Adverse drug events associated with ibrutinib for the treatment of elderly patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.
BACKGROUND
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a rare hematological malignancy classified in the non-Hodgkin's lymphoma category. Ibrutinib, a first-in-class Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor has been approved for use in the treatment of CLL. This drug has shown beneficial effects including a higher overall response rate, sustained remissions, and a tolerable toxicity level. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to compare the adverse drug events which were associated with the use of ibrutinib for the treatment of patients with CLL.
METHODS
A careful search was carried out through the Cochrane Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE (PubMed), and through www.ClinicalTrials.com. The following criteria for inclusion were considered: Both randomized trials and observational cohorts; Studies comparing the adverse drug events observed with the use of ibrutinib versus a control group for the treatment of CLL. The RevMan software (version 5.3) was used to carry out this analysis and the analyzed data were represented by risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS
A total number of 2456 participants with CLL were included in this analysis. One thousand one hundred thirteen participants were treated with ibrutinib whereas the remaining 1343 participants were assigned to the control (non-ibrutinib) group. Results of this current analysis showed Ibrutinib not to be associated with significantly higher risk of anemia (RR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.67-1.21; P = .49), thrombocytopenia (RR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.32-1.14; P = .12), neutropenia (RR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.25-1.00; P = .05), and febrile neutropenia (RR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.32-2.49; P = .83) in these patients with CLL. The risk for respiratory tract infection was also similarly manifested (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.78-1.30; P = .96). However, ibrutinib was associated with a high risk of abdominal manifestations in comparison to the control group (RR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.32-2.00; P = .00001). The risk for diarrhea was also significantly higher in the Ibrutinib group (RR: 2.14, 95% CI: 1.44-3.17; P = .0002).
CONCLUSIONS
During the treatment of CLL, ibrutinib was not associated with significantly higher risks of anemia, thrombocytopenia, or neutropenia compared to the control group. However, abdominal manifestations were significantly higher with ibrutinib. Advanced phase trials should further confirm this hypothesis.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Adenine; Constipation; Diarrhea; Female; Humans; Leukemia, Lymphocytic, Chronic, B-Cell; Male; Piperidines; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vomiting
PubMed: 31415440
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000016915 -
The Oncologist Sep 2019Regorafenib at different dosing strategies and TAS-102 are treatment options for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We aimed to evaluate the comparative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Regorafenib at different dosing strategies and TAS-102 are treatment options for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness evidence supporting these different strategies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We searched different databases for randomized controlled trials evaluating TAS-102 or regorafenib in patients with refractory mCRC who failed prior oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and fluoropyrimidine. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The overall effect was pooled using the DerSimonian random effects model. We conducted network meta-analysis based on White's multivariate meta-regression to pool evidence from direct and indirect comparisons.
RESULTS
Six trials at low risk of bias (2,445 patients) were included. Direct comparisons showed that Rego 160 and TAS-102 as monotherapy were superior to best-supportive care (BSC) in terms of PFS (Rego 160: hazard ratio [HR], 0.4; 95% confidence ratio [CI], 0.26-0.63; TAS-102: HR, 0.46 CI, 0.40-0.52) and OS (Rego 160: HR, 0.67; CI, 0.48-0.93; TAS-102: HR, 0.67; CI, 0.57-0.80). Network analysis showed no statistically difference in PFS or OS between Rego 160 and TAS-102. Rego 80+ was superior to BSC in terms of OS (HR, 0.44; CI, 0.23-0.84) and PFS (HR, 0.37; CI, 0.21-0.66). Rego 80+ was associated with statistically nonsignificant improvement in OS and PFS compared with TAS-102 and Rego 160.
CONCLUSION
Regorafenib 160 and TAS-102 appear to have similar efficacy. Rego 80+ is shown to be superior to BSC. A trend for improved OS was observed with Rego 80+ versus Rego 160 or TAS 102.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
Regorafenib at a dose of 160 mg and TAS-102 appear to have similar efficacy in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. Regorafenib with a dose escalation strategy is superior to best-supportive care. Given its tolerability and the observed trend in survival benefit compared with regorafenib 160, dose escalation strategy of regorafenib (80+) may be the preferred option in this setting.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Colorectal Neoplasms; Drug Combinations; Drug Resistance, Neoplasm; Humans; Neoplasm Metastasis; Phenylurea Compounds; Pyridines; Pyrrolidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Survival Rate; Thymine; Treatment Outcome; Trifluridine; Uracil
PubMed: 31164455
DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0189