-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2014Liver transplantation is an established treatment option for end-stage liver failure. To date, no consensus has been reached on the use of immunosuppressive T-cell... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Liver transplantation is an established treatment option for end-stage liver failure. To date, no consensus has been reached on the use of immunosuppressive T-cell specific antibody induction compared with corticosteroid induction of immunosuppression after liver transplantation.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction for prevention of acute rejection in liver transplant recipients.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 30 September 2013 together with reference checking, citation searching, contact with trial authors and pharmaceutical companies to identify additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised clinical trials assessing immunosuppression with T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction in liver transplant recipients. Our inclusion criteria stated that participants within each included trial should have received the same maintenance immunosuppressive therapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used RevMan for statistical analysis of dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR) and of continuous data with mean difference (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed risk of systematic errors (bias) using bias risk domains with definitions. We used trial sequential analysis to control for random errors (play of chance).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 randomised trials with a total of 1589 liver transplant recipients, which studied the use of T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction. All trials were with high risk of bias. We compared any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction in 10 trials with 1589 participants, including interleukin-2 receptor antagonist induction versus corticosteroid induction in nine trials with 1470 participants, and polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction in one trial with 119 participants.Our analyses showed no significant differences regarding mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.43), graft loss (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.53) and acute rejection (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.00), infection (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.09), hepatitis C virus recurrence (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.00), malignancy (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.73), and post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disorder (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.38) when any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (all low-quality evidence). Cytomegalovirus infection was less frequent in patients receiving any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.75; low-quality evidence). This was also observed when interleukin-2 receptor antagonist induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.83; low-quality evidence), and when polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.70; low-quality evidence). However, when trial sequential analysis regarding cytomegalovirus infection was applied, the required information size was not reached. Furthermore, diabetes mellitus occurred less frequently when T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.60; low-quality evidence), when interleukin-2 receptor antagonist induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61; low-quality evidence), and when polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.95; low-quality evidence). When trial sequential analysis was applied, the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit was crossed. We found no subgroup differences for type of interleukin-2 receptor antagonist (basiliximab versus daclizumab). Four trials reported on adverse events. However, no differences between trial groups were noted. Limited data were available for meta-analysis on drug-specific adverse events such as haematological adverse events for antithymocyte globulin. No data were available on quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Because of the low quality of the evidence, the effects of T-cell antibody induction remain uncertain. T-cell specific antibody induction seems to reduce diabetes mellitus and may reduce cytomegalovirus infection when compared with corticosteroid induction. No other clear benefits or harms were associated with the use of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with corticosteroid induction. For some analyses, the number of trials investigating the use of T-cell specific antibody induction after liver transplantation is small, and the numbers of participants and outcomes in these randomised trials are limited. Furthermore, the included trials are heterogeneous in nature and have applied different types of T-cell specific antibody induction therapy. All trials were at high risk of bias. Hence, additional randomised clinical trials are needed to assess the benefits and harms of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with corticosteroid induction for liver transplant recipients. Such trials ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic error and of random error.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibody Specificity; Graft Rejection; Humans; Immunosuppression Therapy; Immunosuppressive Agents; Induction Chemotherapy; Liver Transplantation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, Interleukin-2; T-Lymphocytes
PubMed: 24880007
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010252.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2013Monoclonal antibodies such as daclizumab could be a possible alternative immunotherapy to interferon beta treatment in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). It blocks the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Monoclonal antibodies such as daclizumab could be a possible alternative immunotherapy to interferon beta treatment in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). It blocks the interleukin-2 receptor alpha subunit (CD25), and seems to be beneficial to patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measures of outcomes.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2010, and previously updated in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the safety of daclizumab and its efficacy to prevent clinical worsening in patients with RRMS.
SEARCH METHODS
The Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group Specialised Register (17 May 2013). We handsearched the references quoted in the identified trials and reports (May 2013) from the most important neurological associations and MS societies. We contacted researchers participating in trials on daclizumab.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating daclizumab, alone or combined with other treatments versus placebo, or any other treatment for patients with RRMS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed references retrieved for possible inclusion, extracted eligible data, cross-checked the data for accuracy and assessed the methodological quality. We resolved any disagreements by consensus among review authors.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two trials with 851 patients that evaluated the efficacy and safety of daclizumab versus placebo for RRMS. We judged them to be at low risk of bias. Due to different time point evaluations and available data on primary studies, we were unable to undertake a meta-analysis. At 24 weeks, the median change was 0 (range -2 to 3) in the interferon beta and placebo group, 0 (-2 to 4) in the interferon beta and low-dose daclizumab group and 0 (-2 to 2) in the interferon beta and high-dose daclizumab group in 230 participants. The proportion of patients who had new clinical relapses were the following: 16 patients (21%) in the interferon beta and high-dose daclizumab group, 19 (24%) in the interferon beta and low-dose daclizumab group and 19 (25%) in the interferon beta and placebo group had relapses (P value = 0.87). At 52 weeks, the changes in Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) from baseline was 0.09 ± 0.71 in placebo group, -0.08 ± 0.52 in low-dose daclizumab group and 0.05 ± 0.61 in high-dose daclizumab group in 621 participants. There was a significant difference between placebo and low-dose daclizumab groups (P value = 0.01), but no significant difference between placebo and high-dose daclizumab groups (P value = 0.49). The proportion of patients with new relapsing MS was significantly reduced in both daclizumab groups (19% in low-dose daclizumab group, 20% in high-dose daclizumab group) compared with placebo group (36%) (P value < 0.0001 and P value = 0.00032, respectively). There was no increased number of patients in any adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.07) or serious adverse events in daclizumab groups compared with placebo (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.29 to 4.54). Infections were the most frequent adverse events in treated participants and were resolved with standard therapies. One trial was still ongoing.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was insufficient evidence to determine whether daclizumab was more effective than placebo in patients affected by RRMS in terms of clinical and MRI measures of outcomes. Daclizumab appeared to be relatively well tolerated. Infections were the most frequent adverse events, and were resolved with standard therapies.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Daclizumab; Humans; Immunoglobulin G; Immunosuppressive Agents; Interferon-beta; Multiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-Remitting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 24363032
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008127.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2013Heart transplantation has become a valuable and well-accepted treatment option for end-stage heart failure. Rejection of the transplanted heart by the recipient's body... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Heart transplantation has become a valuable and well-accepted treatment option for end-stage heart failure. Rejection of the transplanted heart by the recipient's body is a risk to the success of the procedure, and life-long immunosuppression is necessary to avoid this. Clear evidence is required to identify the best, safest and most effective immunosuppressive treatment strategy for heart transplant recipients. To date, there is no consensus on the use of immunosuppressive antibodies against T-cells for induction after heart transplantation.
OBJECTIVES
To review the benefits, harms, feasibility and tolerability of immunosuppressive T-cell antibody induction versus placebo, or no antibody induction, or another kind of antibody induction for heart transplant recipients.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 11, 2012), MEDLINE (Ovid) (1946 to November Week 1 2012), EMBASE (Ovid) (1946 to 2012 Week 45), ISI Web of Science (14 November 2012); we also searched two clinical trial registers and checked reference lists in November 2012.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) assessing immunosuppressive T-cell antibody induction for heart transplant recipients. Within individual trials, we required all participants to receive the same maintenance immunosuppressive therapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors extracted data independently. RevMan analysis was used for statistical analysis of dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR), and of continuous data with mean difference (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Methodological components were used to assess risks of systematic errors (bias). Trial sequential analysis was used to assess the risks of random errors (play of chance). We assessed mortality, acute rejection, infection, Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disorder, cancer, adverse events, chronic allograft vasculopathy, renal function, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and hyperlipidaemia.
MAIN RESULTS
In this review, we included 22 RCTs that investigated the use of T-cell antibody induction, with a total of 1427 heart-transplant recipients. All trials were judged to be at a high risk of bias. Five trials, with a total of 606 participants, compared any kind of T-cell antibody induction versus no antibody induction; four trials, with a total of 576 participants, compared interleukin-2 receptor antagonist (IL-2 RA) versus no induction; one trial, with 30 participants, compared monoclonal antibody (other than IL-2 RA) versus no antibody induction; two trials, with a total of 159 participants, compared IL-2 RA versus monoclonal antibody (other than IL-2 RA) induction; four trials, with a total of 185 participants, compared IL-2 RA versus polyclonal antibody induction; seven trials, with a total of 315 participants, compared monoclonal antibody (other than IL-2 RA) versus polyclonal antibody induction; and four trials, with a total of 162 participants, compared polyclonal antibody induction versus another kind, or dose of polyclonal antibodies.No significant differences were found for any of the comparisons for the outcomes of mortality, infection, CMV infection, post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disorder, cancer, adverse events, chronic allograft vasculopathy, renal function, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, or hyperlipidaemia. Acute rejection occurred significantly less frequently when IL-2 RA induction was compared with no induction (93/284 (33%) versus 132/292 (45%); RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.90; I(2) 57%) applying the fixed-effect model. No significant difference was found when the random-effects model was applied (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.17; I(2) 57%). In addition, acute rejection occurred more often statistically when IL-2 RA induction was compared with polyclonal antibody induction (24/90 (27%) versus 10/95 (11%); RR 2.43; 95% CI 1.01 to 5.86; I(2) 28%). For all of these differences in acute rejection, trial sequential alpha-spending boundaries were not crossed and the required information sizes were not reached when trial sequential analysis was performed, indicating that we cannot exclude random errors.We observed some occasional significant differences in adverse events in some of the comparisons, however definitions of adverse events varied between trials, and numbers of participants and events in these outcomes were too small to allow definitive conclusions to be drawn.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review shows that acute rejection might be reduced by IL-2 RA compared with no induction, and by polyclonal antibody induction compared with IL-2 RA, though trial sequential analyses cannot exclude random errors, and the significance of our observations depended on the statistical model used. Furthermore, this review does not show other clear benefits or harms associated with the use of any kind of T-cell antibody induction compared with no induction, or when one type of T-cell antibody is compared with another type of antibody. The number of trials investigating the use of antibodies against T-cells for induction after heart transplantation is small, and the number of participants and outcomes in these RCTs is limited. Furthermore, the included trials are at a high risk of bias. Hence, more RCTs are needed to assess the benefits and harms of T-cell antibody induction for heart-transplant recipients. Such trials ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic and random error.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antilymphocyte Serum; Basiliximab; Daclizumab; Graft Rejection; Heart Transplantation; Humans; Immunoglobulin G; Immunosuppression Therapy; Muromonab-CD3; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, Interleukin-2; Recombinant Fusion Proteins; T-Lymphocytes
PubMed: 24297433
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008842.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2013Lung transplantation has become a valuable and well-accepted treatment option for most end-stage lung diseases. Lung transplant recipients are at risk of transplanted... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Lung transplantation has become a valuable and well-accepted treatment option for most end-stage lung diseases. Lung transplant recipients are at risk of transplanted organ rejection, and life-long immunosuppression is necessary. Clear evidence is essential to identify an optimal, safe and effective immunosuppressive treatment strategy for lung transplant recipients. Consensus has not yet been achieved concerning use of immunosuppressive antibodies against T-cells for induction following lung transplantation.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to assess the benefits and harms of immunosuppressive T-cell antibody induction with ATG, ALG, IL-2RA, alemtuzumab, or muromonab-CD3 for lung transplant recipients.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register to 4 March 2013 through contact with the Trials Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared immunosuppressive monoclonal and polyclonal T-cell antibody induction for lung transplant recipients. An inclusion criterion was that all participants must have received the same maintenance immunosuppressive therapy within each study.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three authors extracted data. We derived risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Methodological risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and trial sequential analyses were undertaken to assess the risk of random errors (play of chance).
MAIN RESULTS
Our review included six RCTs (representing a total of 278 adult lung transplant recipients) that assessed the use of T-cell antibody induction. Evaluation of the included studies found all to be at high risk of bias.We conducted comparisons of polyclonal or monoclonal T-cell antibody induction versus no induction (3 studies, 140 participants); polyclonal T-cell antibody versus no induction (3 studies, 125 participants); interleukin-2 receptor antagonists (IL-2RA) versus no induction (1 study, 25 participants); polyclonal T-cell antibody versus muromonab-CD3 (1 study, 64 participants); and polyclonal T-cell antibody versus IL-2RA (3 studies, 100 participants). Overall we found no significant differences among interventions in terms of mortality, acute rejection, adverse effects, infection, pneumonia, cytomegalovirus infection, bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome, post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disease, or cancer.We found a significant outcome difference in one study that compared antithymocyte globulin versus muromonab-CD3 relating to adverse events (25/34 (74%) versus 12/30 (40%); RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.98). This suggested that antithymocyte globulin increased occurrence of adverse events. However, trial sequential analysis found that the required information size had not been reached, and the cumulative Z-curve did not cross the trial sequential alpha-spending monitoring boundaries.None of the studies reported quality of life or kidney injury. Trial sequential analyses indicated that none of the meta-analyses achieved required information sizes and the cumulative Z-curves did not cross the trial sequential alpha-spending monitoring boundaries, nor reached the area of futility.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
No clear benefits or harms associated with the use of T-cell antibody induction compared with no induction, or when different types of T-cell antibodies were compared were identified in this review. Few studies were identified that investigated use of antibodies against T-cells for induction after lung transplantation, and numbers of participants and outcomes were also limited. Assessment of the included studies found that all were at high risk of methodological bias.Further RCTs are needed to perform robust assessment of the benefits and harms of T-cell antibody induction for lung transplant recipients. Future studies should be designed and conducted according to methodologies to reduce risks of systematic error (bias) and random error (play of chance).
Topics: Adult; Alemtuzumab; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antilymphocyte Serum; Basiliximab; Daclizumab; Graft Rejection; Humans; Immunoglobulin G; Immunosuppression Therapy; Immunosuppressive Agents; Lung Transplantation; Muromonab-CD3; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, Interleukin-2; Recombinant Fusion Proteins; T-Lymphocytes
PubMed: 24282128
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008927.pub2 -
Transplantation Jun 2012Alemtuzumab (MabCampath or Campath; Genzyme, Cambridge, MA) is a CD52-specific monoclonal antibody that causes profound and sustained lymphocyte depletion. Its use as an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Alemtuzumab (MabCampath or Campath; Genzyme, Cambridge, MA) is a CD52-specific monoclonal antibody that causes profound and sustained lymphocyte depletion. Its use as an induction therapy in organ transplantation is increasing. Since our last systematic review in 2006, where we identified the need for good-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs), several RCTs have been published that examine its efficacy and safety in kidney transplantation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the current evidence for alemtuzumab induction therapy in kidney transplantation.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature search using Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Transplant Library from the Centre for Evidence in Transplantation, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Inclusion criteria specified all RCTs in which kidney transplant recipients receiving induction with alemtuzumab were compared with those receiving another induction agent or no induction. Studies were assessed for methodological quality. The primary outcome was the incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) (Banff grade ≥1), and secondary outcomes included graft loss, renal function, delayed graft function (DGF), patient death, and the incidence of infection, autoimmunity, malignancy, and new-onset diabetes mellitus after transplantation.
RESULTS
Ten RCTs, with a total of 1223 patients, were included. Studies were grouped according to induction regimens. Alemtuzumab induction has a lower risk of BPAR compared with induction with the interleukin-2 receptor antibodies (IL-2RAs): basiliximab (Simulect; Novartis, Basel, Switzerland) and daclizumab (Zenapax; Roche, Basel, Switzerland) combined (relative risk, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.79; P<0.01). No significant difference was observed in the risk of BPAR when alemtuzumab induction was compared with rabbit antithymocyte globulin (rATG) (Thymoglobulin [Genzyme] or ATG-Fresenius S [Fresenius, Munich, Germany]) (relative risk, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.21; P=0.28). There was no difference in graft loss, DGF, patient death, and new-onset diabetes mellitus after transplantation when alemtuzumab was compared with IL-2RAs or rATG induction. The effect of alemtuzumab induction on renal function and the incidence of infection, malignancy, and autoimmunity were limited by the data available. There were two trials comparing alemtuzumab with no induction, but neither trial reported a significant reduction in BPAR at 12 months.
CONCLUSIONS
Alemtuzumab induction reduces the risk of BPAR compared with IL-2RAs but not rATG. Because the incidence of other efficacy outcomes (graft loss, DGF, and patient death) was similar, if it is felt that an induction agent is necessary, then our analysis suggests that it is more acceptable to base the choice of induction agent on safety outcomes and/or costs.
Topics: Alemtuzumab; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic Agents; Graft Rejection; Humans; Kidney Transplantation; Lymphocyte Depletion; Risk Factors; Transplantation Conditioning
PubMed: 22660659
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0b013e318257ad41 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2012The anti-CD25 treatment of daclizumab appears to be effective in patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) as regards clinical and MRI outcomes.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The anti-CD25 treatment of daclizumab appears to be effective in patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) as regards clinical and MRI outcomes. Moreover, there are no severe safety concerns arising from clinical testing so far.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of daclizumab for the clinical progression of patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group's Trials Register (February 2012), MEDLINE (January 1966 to February 2012), EMBASE (January 1985 to February 2012). At the same time, we handsearched the references quoted in the identified trials reports (February 2012) from the most important neurological associations and MS Societies. Contacts with researchers participating in trials on daclizumab have been established.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating daclizumab, alone or combined with other treatments versus placebo, or any other treatment for patients with RRMS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed references retrieved for possible inclusion. Disagreements regarding inclusion were resolved by consensus. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected adverse effects information from the trials.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 470 references from all electronic databases searched excluding duplicate. After screening of titles and abstracts, full papers of 10 studies were obtained and assessed for eligibility. An additional ongoing trial was found. Only one trial (230 participants) evaluating the efficacy of daclizumab versus placebo in interferon beta treated patients was included. It was judged as of high quality study. No significant difference was found in the expanded disability score changes and the annualised relapse rate comparing treated versus placebo groups. No significant difference of common adverse events was found across all the groups at the endpoint. The mean number of new or enlarged gadolinium contrast-enhancing lesions was significantly decreased in the interferon beta and high-dose daclizumab group, compared with that in the interferon beta and placebo group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Daclizumab is well tolerated in combination with interferon beta treated multiple sclerosis population. Comparing with placebo, high-dose daclizumab can significantly decreased the number of new or enlarged gadolinium contrast-enhancing lesions. However, the evidence of recommendation is insufficient. More well-designed RCTs or crossover controlled trials are required to evaluate the efficacy and safety of daclizumab.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Daclizumab; Humans; Immunoglobulin G; Immunosuppressive Agents; Interferon-beta; Multiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-Remitting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 22513956
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008127.pub3 -
Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism Feb 2011To analyze the effectiveness of immunosuppressants and biological therapies in autoimmune posterior uveitis, chronic anterior uveitis associated with juvenile idiopathic... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To analyze the effectiveness of immunosuppressants and biological therapies in autoimmune posterior uveitis, chronic anterior uveitis associated with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and macular edema.
METHODS
Systematic review. We conducted a sensitive literature search in Medline (from 1961) and EMBASE (from 1980) until October 2007. Selection criteria were as follows: (1) population: autoimmune posterior uveitis, chronic anterior uveitis in juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and macular edema; (2) intervention: immunosuppressive and biologic therapies; (3) outcomes: visual acuity, Tyndall, vitreous haze, macular edema, pars planitis, and retinal vasculitis. There were no limitations regarding study design. The quality of each study was evaluated using the Jadad's scale and Oxford Levels of Evidence.
RESULTS
Two hundred sixty-five articles were selected for detailed review of the 4235 found in the initial search: 128 records were on immunosuppressants, 105 on biological therapies, and 32 on macular edema. Overall, both the immunosuppressive and the biologic therapies appeared effective in the treatment of autoimmune posterior uveitis, except for daclizumab in uveitis related to Behçet's disease, and for etanercept in any uveitis. In the treatment of macular edema, the drugs tested were also effective.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the evidence collated, immunosuppressants and biological therapies (except for daclizumab in Behçet and etanercept) may be effective in autoimmune uveitis and macular edema. No superiority may be inferred from this review.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Arthritis, Juvenile; Autoimmune Diseases; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Macular Edema; Treatment Outcome; Uveitis, Anterior; Uveitis, Posterior
PubMed: 20656330
DOI: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2010.05.008 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2010The anti-CD25 treatment of daclizumab appears to be effective in patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) as regards clinical and MRI outcomes.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The anti-CD25 treatment of daclizumab appears to be effective in patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) as regards clinical and MRI outcomes. Moreover, there are no severe safety concerns arising from clinical testing so far.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of daclizumab for patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis Group trials register (September 2009), MEDLINE (January 1966 to September 2009), EMBASE (January 1985 to September 2009). At the same time, we handsearched the references quoted in the identified trials, reports (September 2009) from the most important neurological associations and MS Societies in Europe and America, contacted researchers who were participating in trials on daclizumab.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating daclizumab, alone or combined with other treatments versus placebo, or any other treatment for patients with RRMS. Both parallel group and cross-over designs were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently assessed references retrieved for possible inclusion. All disagreements were resolved by an independent party. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Adverse effects information was collected from the trials.
MAIN RESULTS
We found no study meeting our inclusion criteria.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Although studies examining daclizumab for relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis were located, methodologic limitations resulted in the exclusion of all studies. Some of the studies were labelled as crossover trials, however they only compared the effect of different interventions for the same individual. The true randomized crossover trial should compare the effect of different groups, which receive the same intervention, only with the difference in sequence. In other words, the crossover comparison should be between the different groups, rather than on the individual between pretreatment and post treatment. At the same time, all the individuals should be randomly allocated to different groups. There was also a rigorous randomized controlled trial, but the follow-up was shorter than one year (only 44 weeks). In general, daclizumab is safe and well tolerated in combination of interferon treated multiple sclerosis population. Improvements in methodology in future studies are required for meaningful synthesis of data.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Daclizumab; Humans; Immunoglobulin G; Immunosuppressive Agents; Multiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-Remitting
PubMed: 20556791
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008127.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2010Interleukin 2 receptor antagonists (IL2Ra) are used as induction therapy for prophylaxis against acute rejection in kidney transplant recipients. Use of IL2Ra has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Interleukin 2 receptor antagonists (IL2Ra) are used as induction therapy for prophylaxis against acute rejection in kidney transplant recipients. Use of IL2Ra has increased steadily since their introduction, but the proportion of new transplant recipients receiving IL2Ra differs around the globe, with 27% of new kidney transplant recipients in the United States, and 70% in Australasia receiving IL2Ra in 2007.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically identify and summarise the effects of using an IL2Ra, as an addition to standard therapy, or as an alternative to another immunosuppressive induction strategy.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's specialised register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify new records, and authors of included reports were contacted for clarification where necessary.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in all languages comparing IL2Ra to placebo, no treatment, other IL2Ra or other antibody therapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data was extracted and assessed independently by two authors, with differences resolved by discussion. Dichotomous outcomes are reported as relative risk (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 71 studies (306 reports, 10,537 participants). Where IL2Ra were compared with placebo (32 studies; 5,784 patients) graft loss including death with a functioning graft was reduced by 25% at six months (16 studies: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.98) and one year (24 studies: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.90), but not beyond this. At one year biopsy-proven acute rejection was reduced by 28% (14 studies: RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.81), and there was a 19% reduction in CMV disease (13 studies: RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.97). There was a 64% reduction in early malignancy within six months (8 studies: RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.86), and creatinine was lower (7 studies: MD -8.18 micromol/L 95% CI -14.28 to -2.09) but these differences were not sustained.When IL2Ra were compared to ATG (16 studies, 2211 participants), there was no difference in graft loss at any time point, or for acute rejection diagnosed clinically, but the was benefit of ATG therapy over IL2Ra for biopsy-proven acute rejection at one year (8 studies:, RR 1.30 95% CI 1.01 to 1.67), but at the cost of a 75% increase in malignancy (7 studies: RR 0.25 95% CI 0.07 to 0.87) and a 32% increase in CMV disease (13 studies: RR 0.68 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93). Serum creatinine was significantly lower for IL2Ra treated patients at six months (4 studies: MD -11.20 micromol/L 95% CI -19.94 to -2.09). ATG patients experienced significantly more fever, cytokine release syndrome and other adverse reactions to drug administration and more leucopenia but not thrombocytopenia. There were no significant differences in outcomes according to cyclosporine or tacrolimus use, azathioprine or mycophenolate, or to the study populations baseline risk for acute rejection. There was no evidence that effects were different according to whether equine or rabbit ATG was used.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Given a 38% risk of rejection, per 100 recipients compared with no treatment, nine recipients would need treatment with IL2Ra to prevent one recipient having rejection, 42 to prevent one graft loss, and 38 to prevent one having CMV disease over the first year post-transplantation. Compared with ATG treatment, ATG may prevent some experiencing acute rejection, but 16 recipients would need IL2Ra to prevent one having CMV, but 58 would need IL2Ra to prevent one having malignancy. There are no apparent differences between basiliximab and daclizumab. IL2Ra are as effective as other antibody therapies and with significantly fewer side effects.
Topics: Creatinine; Cytomegalovirus Infections; Glomerular Filtration Rate; Graft Rejection; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Kidney Transplantation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, Interleukin-2
PubMed: 20091551
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003897.pub3 -
Progress in Transplantation (Aliso... Dec 2009To describe the appropriateness and safety of induction immunosuppression for patients at risk for fatal rejection, and to describe the safety and effectiveness profiles... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To describe the appropriateness and safety of induction immunosuppression for patients at risk for fatal rejection, and to describe the safety and effectiveness profiles of the induction regimens available in the United States.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE/PubMed database, EMBASE database, Google Scholar; references from pertinent articles were also reviewed to identify additional data.
STUDY SELECTION
A systematic literature review from January 1, 1980, through June 30, 2008, was performed. Included articles ranged from case series to prospective randomized controlled double-blind placebo-controlled trials that detailed the following topics with respect to induction immunosuppression: risk of fatal rejection, renal sparing, malignancy, OKT3, rabbit or equine antithymocyte globulin, daclizumab, basiliximab, and alemtuzumab.
RESULTS
Patients at highest risk for fatal rejection experienced a survival benefit from induction immunosuppression, whereas all other patients experienced no benefit or harm. Most of the early data detail positive experiences with polyclonal antibody regimens. Several newer trials compare the use of polyclonal strategies with the use of anti-CD25 targeted monoclonal antibodies. Few researchers have assessed the usefulness of an anti-CD52 approach. Overall, induction therapy remains a poorly studied and widely variable practice among the major US heart transplant centers.
CONCLUSION
At present, the unrestricted use of induction for all patients does not seem prudent. Induction should be individualized for each patient on the basis of a well-designed protocol, careful analysis of the transplant center's demographics, and the effectiveness and safety profiles of the regimens used.
Topics: Clinical Protocols; Graft Rejection; Heart Transplantation; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Risk Factors; Transplantation Conditioning
PubMed: 20050456
DOI: 10.1177/152692480901900408