-
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics 2015Immunotherapeutic strategies to treat neurodegenerative disorders have inspired the scientific community. The aim of our review is to address the translational aspects... (Review)
Review
Immunotherapeutic strategies to treat neurodegenerative disorders have inspired the scientific community. The aim of our review is to address the translational aspects of neuroimmunology to describe the efficacy of immunotherapy in the treatment of pediatric neurodegenerative disorders. In the studies we analyzed IVIG were found to be efficient in the treatment of post-streptococcal neurodegenerative disorders, even if in PANDAS, plasma-exchange (PE) showed a higher efficiency. IVIG were also successfully used in ADEM and Guillan-Barré syndrome. In Sydenham Chorea the use of methylprednisolone was found in most cases as efficient as IVIG, while in Tourette's Syndrome, Colecoxib was successfully used in one patient. Pediatric Multiple Sclerosis seems to respond better to immunosuppressant agents (Mitoxantrone, Cyclophosphamide, Natalizumab), as well as Neuromyelitis optica (Rituximab, Mycofenolate). The importance of this review relies in the attempt to draw standardized guidelines for immunotherapy in pediatric neurodegeneratve disorders.
Topics: Autoimmune Diseases; Child; Chorea; Cyclophosphamide; Guillain-Barre Syndrome; Humans; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Immunotherapy; Methylprednisolone; Mitoxantrone; Multiple Sclerosis; Natalizumab; Nervous System; Neurodegenerative Diseases; Neuromyelitis Optica; Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder; Plasma Exchange; Rituximab; Streptococcal Infections; Tourette Syndrome
PubMed: 26266339
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2015.1061161 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2015Anthracycline combined with cytarabine has been the standard for induction therapy of newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) for several decades. Due to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Anthracycline combined with cytarabine has been the standard for induction therapy of newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) for several decades. Due to theoretical advantages, idarubicin (IDA) might be the most effective and tolerable anthracycline. However, there is no evidence that would definitively prove the superiority of IDA over other anthracyclines.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of IDA versus other anthracyclines in induction therapy of newly diagnosed AML.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE (from 1946 to 3 August 2014), EMBASE (from 1974 to 3 August 2014), Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (1978 to 3 August 2014), relevant conference proceedings and databases of ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs that compared IDA with other anthracyclines in induction therapy of newly diagnosed AML.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of studies according to methodological standards of the Cochrane Collaboration. We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for time-to-event data outcomes using the inverse variance method, and risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data outcomes using the Mantel-Haenszel method. We adopted a fixed-effect model and repeated the main meta-analysis by a random-effects model in a sensitivity analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 2017 references. Ultimately, 27 RCTs (including 22 two-armed RCTs and five three-armed RCTs) involving 9549 patients were eligible. The consolidation treatments adopted in the studies were comparable and had no impact on the results. Overall, the risk of bias of the studies was unclear to high.Eighteen RCTs (N = 6755) assessed IDA versus daunorubicin (DNR). The main meta-analyses showed that IDA compared with DNR prolonged overall survival (OS) (12 studies, 5976 patients; HR 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.96, P = 0.0008; high quality of evidence) and disease-free survival (DFS) (eight studies, 3070 patients; HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.96, P = 0.004; moderate quality of evidence), increased complete remission (CR) rate (18 studies, 6692 patients; RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.07, P = 0.009; moderate quality of evidence), and reduced relapse rate (four studies, 1091 patients; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98, P = 0.02; moderate quality of evidence), although increased the risks of death on induction therapy (14 studies, 6349 patients; RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.36, P = 0.03; moderate quality of evidence) and grade 3/4 mucositis (five studies, 2000 patients; RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.44, P = 0.02; moderate quality of evidence). There was no evidence for difference in the risks of grade 3/4 cardiac toxicity (six studies, 2795 patients; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.37, P = 0.91; moderate quality of evidence) and other grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs). None of the studies reported on quality of life (QoL).Eight RCTs (N = 2419) evaluated IDA versus mitoxantrone (MIT). The main meta-analyses showed that there was no evidence for difference between arms in OS (six studies, 2171 patients; HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.08, P = 0.69; high quality of evidence), DFS (four studies, 249 patients; HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.10, P = 0.26; low quality of evidence), CR rate (eight studies, 2411 patients; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.03, P = 0.32;moderate quality of evidence), the risks of death on induction therapy (five studies, 2055 patients; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.38, P = 0.39; moderate quality of evidence) and relapse (three studies, 328 patients; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.22, P = 0.89; moderate quality of evidence). There was no evidence for difference in the risks of grade 3/4 cardiac toxicity (one study, 160 patients; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.88, P = 0.65; low quality of evidence) and other grade 3/4 AEs. None of the studies reported on QoL.Two RCTs (N = 211) compared IDA with doxorubicin (DOX). Neither study assessed OS. One study showed that there was no evidence for difference in DFS (63 patients; HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.14, P = 0.12; low quality of evidence). The main meta-analysis for CR rate showed an improved CR rate with IDA (two studies, 187 patients; RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.59, P = 0.02; low quality of evidence). Neither study provided data for the risks of death on induction therapy and relapse. One trial showed that there was no evidence for difference in the risk of grade 3/4 cardiac toxicity (one study, 100 patients; RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.39, P = 0.47; very low quality of evidence). Neither study reported on QoL.Two RCTs (N = 1037) evaluated IDA versus zorubicin (ZRB). Neither study assessed OS. One trial showed that there was no evidence for difference in DFS (one study, 155 patients; HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.88, P = 0.29; low quality of evidence). The main meta-analyses for CR and death on induction therapy both showed that there was no evidence for difference (CR rate: two studies, 964 patients; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.13, P = 0.31; low quality of evidence. risk of death on induction therapy: two studies, 964 patients; RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.13, P = 0.17; moderate quality of evidence). Neither study reported the risks of relapse and grade 3/4 cardiotoxicity. One trial showed that IDA reduced the risk of grade 3/4 mucositis. Neither study reported on QoL.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared with DNR in induction therapy of newly diagnosed AML, IDA prolongs OS and DFS, increases CR rate and reduces relapse rate, although increases the risks of death on induction therapy and grade 3/4 mucositis. The currently available evidence does not show any difference between IDA and MIT used in induction therapy of newly diagnosed AML. There is insufficient evidence regarding IDA versus DOX and IDA versus ZRB to make final conclusions. Additionally, there is no evidence for difference on the effect of IDA compared with DNR, MIT, DOX or ZRB on QoL.
Topics: Anthracyclines; Antibiotics, Antineoplastic; Daunorubicin; Doxorubicin; Humans; Idarubicin; Induction Chemotherapy; Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute; Mitoxantrone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26037486
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010432.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2015This article describes the second update of a Cochrane review on the effectiveness of laxatives for the management of constipation in people receiving palliative care.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This article describes the second update of a Cochrane review on the effectiveness of laxatives for the management of constipation in people receiving palliative care. Previous versions were published in 2006 and 2010 where we also evaluated trials of methylnaltrexone; these trials have been removed as they are included in another review in press. In these earlier versions, we drew no conclusions on individual effectiveness of different laxatives because of the limited number of evaluations. This is despite constipation being common in palliative care, generating considerable suffering due to the unpleasant physical symptoms and the availability of a wide range of laxatives with known differences in effect in other populations.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and differential efficacy of laxatives used to manage constipation in people receiving palliative care.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science (SCI & CPCI-S) for trials to September 2014.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating laxatives for constipation in people receiving palliative care.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors assessed trial quality and extracted data. The appropriateness of combining data from the studies depended upon clinical and outcome measure homogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified five studies involving the laxatives lactulose, senna, co-danthramer, misrakasneham, docusate and magnesium hydroxide with liquid paraffin. Overall, the study findings were at an unclear risk of bias. As all five studies compared different laxatives or combinations of laxatives, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis. There was no evidence on whether individual laxatives were more effective than others or caused fewer adverse effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This second update found that laxatives were of similar effectiveness but the evidence remains limited due to insufficient data from a few small RCTs. None of the studies evaluated polyethylene glycol or any intervention given rectally. There is a need for more trials to evaluate the effectiveness of laxatives in palliative care populations. Extrapolating findings on the effectiveness of laxatives evaluated in other populations should proceed with caution. This is because of the differences inherent in people receiving palliative care that may impact, in a likely negative way, on the effect of a laxative.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Anthraquinones; Cathartics; Constipation; Humans; Lactulose; Magnesium Hydroxide; Naltrexone; Palliative Care; Paraffin; Quaternary Ammonium Compounds; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Senna Extract
PubMed: 25967924
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003448.pub4 -
European Journal of Medical Research Mar 2015To conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with the aims of comparing relevant clinical outcomes (that is, visual... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
To conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with the aims of comparing relevant clinical outcomes (that is, visual analog scores (VAS), total and sub-Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) scores, Lequesne algofunctional index, joint space width change, and adverse events) between diacerein, glucosamine, and placebo.
METHODS
Medline and Scopus databases were searched from inception to 29 August 2014, using PubMed and Scopus search engines and included RCTs or quasi-experimental designs comparing clinical outcomes between treatments. Data were extracted from original studies. A network meta-analysis was performed by applying weight regression for continuous outcomes and a mixed-effect Poisson regression for dichotomous outcomes.
RESULTS
Thirty-one of 505 identified studies were eligible. Compared to placebo, glucosamine showed a significant improvement with unstandardized mean differences (UMD) in total WOMAC, pain WOMAC, function WOMAC, and Lequesne score of -2.49 (95% confidence interval (CI) -4.14, -0.83), -0.75 (95% CI: -1.18, -0.32), -4.78 (95% CI: -5.96, -3.59), and -1.03 (95% CI: -1.34, -0.72), respectively. Diacerein clinically improves visual analog scores, function WOMAC, and stiffness WOMAC with UMD values of -2.23 (95% CI: -2.82, -1.64), -6.64 (95% CI: -10.50, -2.78), and -0.68 (95% CI: -1.20, -0.16) when compared to placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
The network meta-analysis suggests that diacerein and glucosamine are equally efficacious for symptom relief in knee OA, but that the former has more side effects.
Topics: Anthraquinones; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Glucosamine; Humans; Osteoarthritis, Knee
PubMed: 25889669
DOI: 10.1186/s40001-015-0115-7 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2014Osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the most prevalent musculoskeletal diseases. There is currently no consensus on what is the best treatment to improve OA symptoms and slow... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the most prevalent musculoskeletal diseases. There is currently no consensus on what is the best treatment to improve OA symptoms and slow disease progression. Diacerein is an anthraquinone synthesised in 1980 that interferes with interleukin-1, an inflammatory mediator. It has been proposed that diacerein acts as a slow-acting, symptom-modifying and perhaps disease-structure-modifying drug for OA. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2006.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of diacerein for the treatment of adults with OA when compared with placebo and other pharmacologically active interventions (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and other symptom-modifying, slow-acting drugs) for OA.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) - The Cochrane Library, Issue 10, 2013, MEDLINE (1966 to 2013), EMBASE (1980 to 2013), LILACS (1982 to 2013), and ACP Journal Club, and we handsearched reference lists of published articles. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Platform ( http://www.who.int/trialsearch/Default.aspx) to identify ongoing trials and screened reference lists of retrieved review articles and trials to identify potentially relevant studies. All searches were up to date as of March 2013. Pharmaceutical companies and authors of published articles were contacted. We searched the websites of the regulatory agencies using the keyword 'diacerein' in November 2013. No language restrictions were applied.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies were included if they were randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared diacerein with placebo or another active pharmacological intervention in participants with OA.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data abstraction and quality assessment were performed by two independent investigators, and their results were compared. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used. The quality of evidence obtained was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified three new trials (141 participants), and this updated review now includes 10 trials, totalling 2,210 participants. The most frequent risk of bias was incomplete outcome data, identified in approximately 80% of the studies. Allocation concealment and random sequence generation were unclear in 90% and 40% of the studies, respectively, because of poor reporting.Low-quality evidence from six trials (1,283 participants) indicates that diacerein has a small beneficial effect on overall pain (measured on a 100 mm visual analogue scale) at three to 36 months (mean difference (MD) -8.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) -15.62 to -1.68), which is equivalent to a 9% pain reduction in the diacerein group (95% CI -16% to -2%) compared with the placebo group. This benefit may not be clinically significant.No statistically significant differences in physical function (4 studies, 1006 participants) were noted between the diacerein and placebo groups (Lequesne impairment index, 0 to 24 points) (MD -0.29, 95% CI -0.87 to 0.28).Low-quality evidence from two trials (616 participants) on slowing of joint space narrowing (a decrease greater than 0.50 mm) in the knee or hip favoured diacerein over placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.99), with an absolute risk difference of -6% (95% CI -15% to 2%) and a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 14 (95% CI 8 to 203). Analysis of the knee joint alone (1 study, 170 participants) did not reach statistical significance (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.74).None of the trials of diacerein versus placebo measured quality of life. According to one trial (161 participants), which compared diacerein versus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), the quality of life of participants in the two groups (as assessed by the Short Form (SF)-36 health survey questionnaire (0 to 800 sum score)) did not differ significantly (MD -40.70, 95% CI -85.20 to 3.80).Low-quality evidence from seven trials showed significantly more adverse events in the diacerein group compared with the placebo group after two to 36 months, mainly diarrhoea (RR 3.52, 95% CI 2.42 to 5.11), with an absolute risk increase of 24% (95% CI 12% to 35%), and a number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) of 4 (95% CI 3 to 7).No statistically significant differences in participant withdrawal due to adverse events were seen at two to 36 months for diacerein compared with placebo (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.01).A search of regulatory websites found a recommendation from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) that the marketing authorization of diacerein should be suspended across Europe because of harms (particularly the risk of severe diarrhoea and potentially harmful effects on the liver) outweighing benefits. However, this guidance is not final as the PRAC recommendation will be re-examined.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In this update, the strength of evidence for effectiveness outcomes was low to moderate. We confirmed that symptomatic benefit provided by diacerein in terms of pain reduction is minimal. The small benefit derived in terms of joint space narrowing is of questionable clinical relevance and was observed only for OA of the hip. With respect to adverse effects of diacerein, diarrhoea was most frequent. Given the recent guidance issued by the EMA recommending suspension of diacerein in Europe, the EMA website should be consulted for further recommendations regarding the use of diacerein.
Topics: Anthraquinones; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Humans; Osteoarthritis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 24515444
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005117.pub3 -
Canadian Oncology Nursing Journal =... 2013Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a side effect of opioid therapy that can affect quality of life, adherence to treatment, and morbidity and possibly mortality. (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a side effect of opioid therapy that can affect quality of life, adherence to treatment, and morbidity and possibly mortality.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate whether docusate sodium, sennosides, and lactulose have equal efficacy and side effect profiles compared to PEG in the management of OIC in adults.
METHODS
A systematic review was undertaken. Randomized controlled trials of adults taking opioids for cancer or non-cancer pain were considered if they met inclusion criteria.
CONCLUSIONS
Statistical pooling was not possible as no studies met inclusion criteria. Large, well-powered, randomized controlled trials are feasible. Standard definitions of OIC would assist with the execution of these studies and contribute to their internal and external validity. Further research is strongly encouraged.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Cathartics; Constipation; Dioctyl Sulfosuccinic Acid; Humans; Lactulose; Laxatives; Polyethylene Glycols; Senna Extract; Surface-Active Agents
PubMed: 24428006
DOI: 10.5737/1181912x234236240 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2013A new review team are preparing a new protocol to replace this review. The new review is entitled 'Interventions for the management of malignant pleural effusions'.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
A new review team are preparing a new protocol to replace this review. The new review is entitled 'Interventions for the management of malignant pleural effusions'. Publication of the full review is anticipated in early 2015. The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.
Topics: Humans; Mitoxantrone; Pleural Effusion, Malignant; Pleurodesis; Propionibacterium acnes; Quinacrine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sclerosing Solutions; Talc; Tetracycline
PubMed: 24259053
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002916.pub3 -
Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and... Dec 2013The relative effectiveness and safety profile of the treatments with marketing authorization for relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) are not well known because randomized... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials for comparing the effectiveness and safety profile of treatments with marketing authorization for relapsing multiple sclerosis.
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE
The relative effectiveness and safety profile of the treatments with marketing authorization for relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) are not well known because randomized controlled trials with head-to-head comparisons between these treatments do not exist. Thus, a network of multiple-treatments meta-analysis was performed using four clinical outcomes: 'patients free of relapse', 'patients without disease progression', 'patients without MRI progression' and 'patients with adverse events'.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on MS were systematically searched in PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial. The network analysis performed pairwise comparisons between the marketed treatments (Betaferon 250mcg, Avonex 30mcg, Rebif 44mcg, Rebif 22mcg, Aubagio 7 mg, Aubagio 14 mg, Copaxone 20 mg, Tysabri 300 mg, Gilenya 0·5 mg and Novantrone 12 mg/m(2)) using direct and indirect analyses.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The analysis included 48 articles, involving 20 455 patients with MS. The direct analysis showed better response for more than one outcome for Gilenya compared with Avonex ('patients free of relapse' and 'patients without MRI progression') and for Betaferon compared with Avonex ('patients without disease progression' and 'patients without MRI progression'). The indirect analysis indicated that Tysabri may have better relative effectiveness compared with the other treatments for two outcomes: 'patients free of relapse' and 'patients without MRI progression'. Regarding 'patients with adverse events', no data were available for all comparisons to make fair inferences.
WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION
This was an attempt, for the first time, to compare the efficacy and safety profile of existing approved treatments for relapsing MS. Although some treatments have shown better response, the results of the network analysis should be interpreted with caution because of the lack of RCTs with head-to-head comparisons between treatments.
Topics: Data Interpretation, Statistical; Disease Progression; Glatiramer Acetate; Interferon beta-1a; Interferon-beta; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Mitoxantrone; Multiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-Remitting; Peptides; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention
PubMed: 23957759
DOI: 10.1111/jcpt.12090 -
Asia-Pacific Psychiatry : Official... Dec 2013This systematic review investigated drug utilization for depression and assessed trends in prescriptions in China. Major Western and Chinese electronic databases were... (Review)
Review
This systematic review investigated drug utilization for depression and assessed trends in prescriptions in China. Major Western and Chinese electronic databases were searched without language restriction for studies reporting defined daily doses. A total of 76 studies published between 2000 and 2010 reporting data on prescriptions for depression in China between 1996 and 2008 were included. All studies were published in Chinese. Most trials were conducted in urban areas in south and east China. Twenty-nine drugs were reported as antidepressants. On the basis of defined daily doses, melitracen/flupentixol combination, fluoxetine, and paroxetine were the most frequently prescribed compounds. According to published evidence, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors have become the most commonly prescribed class of antidepressant drugs in China.
Topics: Anthracenes; Antidepressive Agents; China; Databases, Bibliographic; Depressive Disorder; Drug Combinations; Drug Utilization; Flupenthixol; Humans; Practice Patterns, Physicians'; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 23857675
DOI: 10.1111/appy.12022 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2013Different therapeutic strategies are available for treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) including immunosuppressants, immunomodulators, and monoclonal antibodies. Their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Different therapeutic strategies are available for treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) including immunosuppressants, immunomodulators, and monoclonal antibodies. Their relative effectiveness in the prevention of relapse or disability progression is unclear due to the limited number of direct comparison trials. A summary of the results, including both direct and indirect comparisons of treatment effects, may help to clarify the above uncertainty.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the relative efficacy and acceptability of interferon ß-1b (IFNß-1b) (Betaseron), interferon ß-1a (IFNß-1a) (Rebif and Avonex), glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, mitoxantrone, methotrexate, cyclophosphamide, azathioprine, intravenous immunoglobulins, and long-term corticosteroids versus placebo or another active agent in participants with MS and to provide a ranking of the treatments according to their effectiveness and risk-benefit balance.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane MS Group Trials Register, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports. The most recent search was run in February 2012.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that studied one of the 11 treatments for use in adults with MS and that reported our pre-specified efficacy outcomes were considered for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Identifying search results and data extraction were performed independently by two authors. Data synthesis was performed by pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis that was performed within a Bayesian framework. The body of evidence for outcomes within the pairwise meta-analysis was assessed according to GRADE, as very low, low, moderate, or high quality.
MAIN RESULTS
Forty-four trials were included in this review, in which 17,401 participants had been randomised. Twenty-three trials included relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) (9096 participants, 52%), 18 trials included progressive MS (7726, 44%), and three trials included both RRMS and progressive MS (579, 3%). The majority of the included trials were short-term studies, with the median duration being 24 months. The results originated mostly from 33 trials on IFNß, glatiramer acetate, and natalizumab that overall contributed outcome data for 9881 participants (66%).From the pairwise meta-analysis, there was high quality evidence that natalizumab and IFNß-1a (Rebif) were effective against recurrence of relapses in RRMS during the first 24 months of treatment compared to placebo (odds ratio (OR) 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 0.43; OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.71, respectively); they were more effective than IFNß-1a (Avonex) (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.36; OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.60, respectively). IFNß-1b (Betaseron) and mitoxantrone probably decreased the odds of the participants with RRMS having clinical relapses compared to placebo (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.99; OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.54, respectively) but the quality of evidence for these treatments was graded as moderate. From the network meta-analysis, the most effective drug appeared to be natalizumab (median OR versus placebo 0.29, 95% credible intervals (CrI) 0.17 to 0.51), followed by IFNß-1a (Rebif) (median OR versus placebo 0.44, 95% CrI 0.24 to 0.70), mitoxantrone (median OR versus placebo 0.43, 95% CrI 0.20 to 0.87), glatiramer acetate (median OR versus placebo 0.48, 95% CrI 0.38 to 0.75), IFNß-1b (Betaseron) (median OR versus placebo 0.48, 95% CrI 0.29 to 0.78). However, our confidence was moderate for direct comparison of mitoxantrone and IFNB-1b vs placebo and very low for direct comparison of glatiramer vs placebo. The relapse outcome for RRMS at three years' follow-up was not reported by any of the included trials.Disability progression was based on surrogate markers in the majority of included studies and was unavailable for RRMS beyond two to three years. The pairwise meta-analysis suggested, with moderate quality evidence, that natalizumab and IFNß-1a (Rebif) probably decreased the odds of the participants with RRMS having disability progression at two years' follow-up, with an absolute reduction of 14% and 10%, respectively, compared to placebo. Natalizumab and IFNß-1b (Betaseron) were significantly more effective (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.78; OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.70, respectively) than IFNß-1a (Avonex) in reducing the number of the participants with RRMS who had progression at two years' follow-up, and confidence in this result was graded as moderate. From the network meta-analyses, mitoxantrone appeared to be the most effective agent in decreasing the odds of the participants with RRMS having progression at two years' follow-up, but our confidence was very low for direct comparison of mitoxantrone vs placebo. Both pairwise and network meta-analysis revealed that none of the individual agents included in this review were effective in preventing disability progression over two or three years in patients with progressive MS.There was not a dose-effect relationship for any of the included treatments with the exception of mitoxantrone.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our review should provide some guidance to clinicians and patients. On the basis of high quality evidence, natalizumab and IFNß-1a (Rebif) are superior to all other treatments for preventing clinical relapses in RRMS in the short-term (24 months) compared to placebo. Moderate quality evidence supports a protective effect of natalizumab and IFNß-1a (Rebif) against disability progression in RRMS in the short-term compared to placebo. These treatments are associated with long-term serious adverse events and their benefit-risk balance might be unfavourable. IFNß-1b (Betaseron) and mitoxantrone probably decreased the odds of the participants with RRMS having relapses, compared with placebo (moderate quality of evidence). The benefit-risk balance with azathioprine is uncertain, however this agent might be effective in decreasing the odds of the participants with RRMS having relapses and disability progression over 24 to 36 months, compared with placebo. The lack of convincing efficacy data shows that IFNß-1a (Avonex), intravenous immunoglobulins, cyclophosphamide and long-term steroids have an unfavourable benefit-risk balance in RRMS. None of the included treatments are effective in decreasing disability progression in patients with progressive MS. It is important to consider that the clinical effects of all these treatments beyond two years are uncertain, a relevant point for a disease of 30 to 40 years duration. Direct head-to-head comparison(s) between natalizumab and IFNß-1a (Rebif) or between azathioprine and IFNß-1a (Rebif) should be top priority on the research agenda and follow-up of the trial cohorts should be mandatory.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Glatiramer Acetate; Humans; Immunologic Factors; Immunosuppressive Agents; Interferon beta-1a; Interferon beta-1b; Interferon-beta; Mitoxantrone; Multiple Sclerosis, Chronic Progressive; Multiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-Remitting; Natalizumab; Peptides; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 23744561
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008933.pub2