-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2023Since the approval of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, angiogenesis inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the treatment landscape for advanced renal cell carcinoma... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Since the approval of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, angiogenesis inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the treatment landscape for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has changed fundamentally. Today, combined therapies from different drug categories have a firm place in a complex first-line therapy. Due to the large number of drugs available, it is necessary to identify the most effective therapies, whilst considering their side effects and impact on quality of life (QoL).
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate and compare the benefits and harms of first-line therapies for adults with advanced RCC, and to produce a clinically relevant ranking of therapies. Secondary objectives were to maintain the currency of the evidence by conducting continuous update searches, using a living systematic review approach, and to incorporate data from clinical study reports (CSRs).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings and relevant trial registries up until 9 February 2022. We searched several data platforms to identify CSRs.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating at least one targeted therapy or immunotherapy for first-line treatment of adults with advanced RCC. We excluded trials evaluating only interleukin-2 versus interferon-alpha as well as trials with an adjuvant treatment setting. We also excluded trials with adults who received prior systemic anticancer therapy if more than 10% of participants were previously treated, or if data for untreated participants were not separately extractable.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
All necessary review steps (i.e. screening and study selection, data extraction, risk of bias and certainty assessments) were conducted independently by at least two review authors. Our outcomes were overall survival (OS), QoL, serious adverse events (SAEs), progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs), the number of participants who discontinued study treatment due to an AE, and the time to initiation of first subsequent therapy. Where possible, analyses were conducted for the different risk groups (favourable, intermediate, poor) according to the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Score (IMDC) or the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) criteria. Our main comparator was sunitinib (SUN). A hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) lower than 1.0 is in favour of the experimental arm.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 36 RCTs and 15,177 participants (11,061 males and 4116 females). Risk of bias was predominantly judged as being 'high' or 'some concerns' across most trials and outcomes. This was mainly due to a lack of information about the randomisation process, the blinding of outcome assessors, and methods for outcome measurements and analyses. Additionally, study protocols and statistical analysis plans were rarely available. Here we present the results for our primary outcomes OS, QoL, and SAEs, and for all risk groups combined for contemporary treatments: pembrolizumab + axitinib (PEM+AXI), avelumab + axitinib (AVE+AXI), nivolumab + cabozantinib (NIV+CAB), lenvatinib + pembrolizumab (LEN+PEM), nivolumab + ipilimumab (NIV+IPI), CAB, and pazopanib (PAZ). Results per risk group and results for our secondary outcomes are reported in the summary of findings tables and in the full text of this review. The evidence on other treatments and comparisons can also be found in the full text. Overall survival (OS) Across risk groups, PEM+AXI (HR 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 1.07, moderate certainty) and NIV+IPI (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.00, moderate certainty) probably improve OS, compared to SUN, respectively. LEN+PEM may improve OS (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.03, low certainty), compared to SUN. There is probably little or no difference in OS between PAZ and SUN (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.32, moderate certainty), and we are uncertain whether CAB improves OS when compared to SUN (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.64, very low certainty). The median survival is 28 months when treated with SUN. Survival may improve to 43 months with LEN+PEM, and probably improves to: 41 months with NIV+IPI, 39 months with PEM+AXI, and 31 months with PAZ. We are uncertain whether survival improves to 34 months with CAB. Comparison data were not available for AVE+AXI and NIV+CAB. Quality of life (QoL) One RCT measured QoL using FACIT-F (score range 0 to 52; higher scores mean better QoL) and reported that the mean post-score was 9.00 points higher (9.86 lower to 27.86 higher, very low certainty) with PAZ than with SUN. Comparison data were not available for PEM+AXI, AVE+AXI, NIV+CAB, LEN+PEM, NIV+IPI, and CAB. Serious adverse events (SAEs) Across risk groups, PEM+AXI probably increases slightly the risk for SAEs (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.85, moderate certainty) compared to SUN. LEN+PEM (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.19, moderate certainty) and NIV+IPI (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.97, moderate certainty) probably increase the risk for SAEs, compared to SUN, respectively. There is probably little or no difference in the risk for SAEs between PAZ and SUN (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.31, moderate certainty). We are uncertain whether CAB reduces or increases the risk for SAEs (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.43, very low certainty) when compared to SUN. People have a mean risk of 40% for experiencing SAEs when treated with SUN. The risk increases probably to: 61% with LEN+PEM, 57% with NIV+IPI, and 52% with PEM+AXI. It probably remains at 40% with PAZ. We are uncertain whether the risk reduces to 37% with CAB. Comparison data were not available for AVE+AXI and NIV+CAB.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Findings concerning the main treatments of interest comes from direct evidence of one trial only, thus results should be interpreted with caution. More trials are needed where these interventions and combinations are compared head-to-head, rather than just to SUN. Moreover, assessing the effect of immunotherapies and targeted therapies on different subgroups is essential and studies should focus on assessing and reporting relevant subgroup data. The evidence in this review mostly applies to advanced clear cell RCC.
Topics: Male; Female; Adult; Humans; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Axitinib; Nivolumab; Network Meta-Analysis; Sunitinib
PubMed: 37146227
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013798.pub2 -
PloS One 2023Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have changed the treatment pattern of advanced and metastatic NSCLC. A series of ICI based therapies have emerged in the first-line... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Identifying optimal first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors based regiments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer without oncogenic driver mutations: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have changed the treatment pattern of advanced and metastatic NSCLC. A series of ICI based therapies have emerged in the first-line treatment field, but the comparative efficacy was unclear.
METHOD
We searched multiple databases and abstracts of major conference proceedings up to Apri1, 2022 for phase III randomised trials of advanced driver-gene wild type NSCLC patients receiving first-line therapy. Outcomes analyzed included progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and et al.
RESULTS
Thirty-two double-blind RCTs were included, involving 18,656 patients assigned to 22 ICI-based first-line regimens. A series of ICI regiments (including ICI plus chemotherapy), ICI monotherapy, doublet ICIs, doublet ICIs plus chemotherapy) emerged, and showed significant PFS and OS benefit than chemotherapy and chemotherapy + bevacizumab (BEV) for advanced wild-type NSCLC. In comprehensive terms of PFS, chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) were significantly more effective than ICI monotherapy and doublet ICIs. In terms of OS for patients with non-squamous NSCLC, pembrolizumab containing CIT was associated with a median rank of the best regimens, and followed by Atezolizumab+BEV based CIT; while for OS in patients with squamous NSCLC, Cemiplimab and sintilimab based CIT were the most effective regimens. For more than 2 years follow-up, the atezolizumab, pembrolizumab, nivolumab and durvalumab containing ICI therapy all provide a durable long-term OS benefit over chemotherapy and BEV + chemotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of the present NMA represent the most comprehensive evidence, which might suggest or provide basis for first-line ICI therapy decision for advanced NSCLC patients without oncogenic driver mutations.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Network Meta-Analysis; Lung Neoplasms; Bevacizumab; Mutation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37071610
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283719 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2023Neovascular glaucoma (NVG) is a potentially blinding, secondary glaucoma. It is caused by the formation of abnormal new blood vessels, which prevent normal drainage of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Neovascular glaucoma (NVG) is a potentially blinding, secondary glaucoma. It is caused by the formation of abnormal new blood vessels, which prevent normal drainage of aqueous from the anterior segment of the eye. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) medications are specific inhibitors of the primary mediators of neovascularization. Studies have reported the effectiveness of anti-VEGF medications for the control of intraocular pressure (IOP) in NVG.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of intraocular anti-VEGF medications, alone or with one or more types of conventional therapy, compared with no anti-VEGF medications for the treatment of NVG.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register); MEDLINE; Embase; PubMed; and LILACS to 19 October 2021; metaRegister of Controlled Trials to 19 October 2021; and two additional trial registers to 19 October 2021. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of people treated with anti-VEGF medications for NVG.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the search results for trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias, and the certainty of the evidence. We resolved discrepancies through discussion.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five RCTs (356 eyes of 353 participants). Each trial was conducted in a different country: two in China, and one each in Brazil, Egypt, and Japan. All five RCTs included both men and women; the mean age of participants was 55 years or older. Two RCTs compared intravitreal bevacizumab combined with Ahmed valve implantation and panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) with Ahmed valve implantation and PRP alone. One RCT randomized participants to receive an injection of either intravitreal aflibercept or placebo at the first visit, followed by non-randomized treatment according to clinical findings after one week. The remaining two RCTs randomized participants to PRP with and without ranibizumab, one of which had insufficient details for further analysis. We assessed the RCTs to have an unclear risk of bias for most domains due to insufficient information to permit judgment. Four RCTs examined achieving control of IOP, three of which reported our time points of interest. Only one RCT reported our critical time point at one month; it found that the anti-VEGF group had a 1.3-fold higher chance of achieving control of IOP at one month (RR 1.32, 95% 1.10 to 1.59; 93 participants) than the non-anti-VEGF group (low certainty of evidence). For other time points, one RCT found a three-fold greater achievement in control of IOP in the anti-VEGF group when compared with the non-anti-VEGF group at one year (RR 3.00; 95% CI:1.35 to 6.68; 40 participants). However, another RCT found an inconclusive result at the time period ranging from 1.5 years to three years (RR 1.08; 95% CI: 0.67 to 1.75; 40 participants). All five RCTs examined mean IOP, but at different time points. Very-low-certainty evidence showed that anti-VEGFs were effective in reducing mean IOP by 6.37 mmHg (95% CI: -10.09 to -2.65; 3 RCTs; 173 participants) at four to six weeks when compared with no anti-VEGFs. Anti-VEGFs may reduce mean IOP at three months (MD -4.25; 95% CI -12.05 to 3.54; 2 studies; 75 participants), six months (MD -5.93; 95% CI -18.13 to 6.26; 2 studies; 75 participants), one year (MD -5.36; 95% CI -18.50 to 7.77; 2 studies; 75 participants), and more than one year (MD -7.05; 95% CI -16.61 to 2.51; 2 studies; 75 participants) when compared with no anti-VEGFs, but such effects remain uncertain. Two RCTs reported the proportion of participants who achieved an improvement in visual acuity with specified time points. Participants receiving anti-VEGFs had a 2.6 times (95% CI 1.60 to 4.08; 1 study; 93 participants) higher chance of improving visual acuity when compared with those not receiving anti-VEGFs at one month (very low certainty of evidence). Likewise, another RCT found a similar result at 18 months (RR 4.00, 95% CI 1.33 to 12.05; 1 study; 40 participants). Two RCTs reported the outcome, complete regression of new iris vessels, at our time points of interest. Low-certainty evidence showed that anti-VEGFs had a nearly three times higher chance of complete regression of new iris vessels when compared with no anti-VEGFs (RR 2.63, 95% CI 1.65 to 4.18; 1 study; 93 participants). A similar finding was observed at more than one year in another RCT (RR 3.20, 95% CI 1.45 to 7.05; 1 study; 40 participants). Regarding adverse events, there was no evidence that the risks of hypotony and tractional retinal detachment were different between the two groups (RR 0.67; 95% CI: 0.12 to 3.57 and RR 0.33; 95% CI: 0.01 to 7.72, respectively; 1 study; 40 participants). No RCTs reported incidents of endophthalmitis, vitreous hemorrhage, no light perception, and serious adverse events. Evidence for the adverse events of anti-VEGFs was low due to limitations in the study design due to insufficient information to permit judgments and imprecision of results due to the small sample size. No trial reported the proportion of participants with relief of pain and resolution of redness at any time point.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Anti-VEGFs as an adjunct to conventional treatment could help reduce IOP in NVG in the short term (four to six weeks), but there is no evidence that this is likely in the longer term. Currently available evidence regarding the short- and long-term effectiveness and safety of anti-VEGFs in achieving control of IOP, visual acuity, and complete regression of new iris vessels in NVG is insufficient. More research is needed to investigate the effect of these medications compared with, or in addition to, conventional surgical or medical treatment in achieving these outcomes in NVG.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Bevacizumab; Glaucoma, Neovascular; Ranibizumab; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 37010901
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007920.pub4 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2023The canonical Wnt inhibitor Dickkopf-1 (Dkk-1) has the capacity to modulate homeostasis between canonical and non-canonical Wnt pathways and also signal independently of...
BACKGROUND
The canonical Wnt inhibitor Dickkopf-1 (Dkk-1) has the capacity to modulate homeostasis between canonical and non-canonical Wnt pathways and also signal independently of Wnt. The specific effects of Dkk-1 activity on tumor physiology are therefore unpredictable with examples of Dkk-1 serving as either a driver or suppressor of malignancy. Given that Dkk-1 blockade may serve as a potential treatment for some types of cancer, we questioned whether it is possible to predict the role of Dkk-1 on tumor progression based on the tissue origin of the tumor.
METHODS
Original research articles that described Dkk-1 in terms a tumor suppressor or driver of cancer growth were identified. To determine the association between tumor developmental origin and the role of Dkk-1, a logistic regression was performed. The Cancer Genome Atlas database was interrogated for survival statistics based on tumor Dkk-1 expression.
RESULTS
We report that Dkk-1 is statistically more likely to serve as a suppressor in tumors arising from the ectoderm ( = 0.0198) or endoderm ( = 0.0334) but more likely to serve as a disease driver in tumors of mesodermal origin ( = 0.0155). Survival analyses indicated that in cases where Dkk-1 expression could be stratified, high Dkk-1 expression is usually associated with poor prognosis. This in part may be due to pro-tumorigenic role Dkk-1 plays on tumor cells but also through its influence on immunomodulatory and angiogenic processes in the tumor stroma.
CONCLUSION
Dkk-1 has a context-specific dual role as a tumor suppressor or driver. Dkk-1 is significantly more likely to serve as a tumor suppressor in tumors arising from ectoderm and endoderm while the converse is true for mesodermal tumors. Patient survival data indicated high Dkk-1 expression is generally a poor prognostic indicator. These findings provide further support for the importance of Dkk-1 as a therapeutic cancer target in some cases.
PubMed: 37007131
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1114822 -
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) Mar 2023(1) Background: Among new anti-angiogenesis agents being developed and ever-changing guidelines indications, the question of the benefits/safety ratio remains unclear.... (Review)
Review
(1) Background: Among new anti-angiogenesis agents being developed and ever-changing guidelines indications, the question of the benefits/safety ratio remains unclear. (2) Methods: We performed a systematic review combined with a meta-analysis of 23 randomized controlled trials (12,081 patients), evaluating overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS) and toxicity (grade ≥ 3 toxic effects, type, and number of all adverse effects. (3) Results: The analysis showed improvement of pooled-PFS (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.64-0.78; I = 77%; < 0.00001) in first-line (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93; = 0.0003) or recurrent cancer (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56-0.70; < 0.00001) and regardless of the type of anti-angiogenesis drug used (Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors, VEGF-receptors (VEGF-R) inhibitors or angiopoietin inhibitors). Improved OS was also observed (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.90-0.99; = 0.03). OS benefits were only observed in recurrent neoplasms, both platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant neoplasms. Grade ≥ 3 adverse effects were increased across all trials. Anti-angiogenetic therapy increased the risk of hypertension, infection, thromboembolic/hemorrhagic events, and gastro-intestinal perforations but not the risk of wound-related issues, anemia or posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome. (4) Conclusions: Although angiogenesis inhibitors improve PFS, there are little-to-no OS benefits. Given the high risk of severe adverse reactions, a careful selection of patients is required for obtaining the best results possible.
PubMed: 36980348
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13061040 -
Ophthalmic Research 2023Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) is a common visual threatening ocular disease, patients with nonclearing vitreous hemorrhage (VH), tractional retinal detachment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes of Small Gauge Vitrectomy with or without Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Agents Pretreatment for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy.
BACKGROUND
Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) is a common visual threatening ocular disease, patients with nonclearing vitreous hemorrhage (VH), tractional retinal detachment (RD), or extensive fibrovascular proliferation are always in need for surgical treatment. Although several studies reported better surgical outcome in patients underwent surgery after anti-VEGF injection, the effect of anti-VEGF pretreatment for small gauge vitrectomy in PDR patients remains to be elucidated.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of the study was to evaluate the benefits of preoperative anti-VEGF treatment in small gauge vitrectomy for PDR patients.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed to identify relevant studies. Meta-analyses were performed for intraoperative (including intraoperative bleeding, endodiathermy, iatrogenic retinal breaks, surgical time, etc.) and postoperative outcome parameters (including best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), postoperative VH, postoperative RD, etc.).
RESULTS
Ten randomized controlled trials were identified and used for comparing small gauge vitrectomy alone (344 eyes, control group) and small gauge vitrectomy with preoperative anti-VEGF injection (355 eyes). The intraoperative findings showed that the surgical time, the incidence of clinically significant intraoperative bleeding, iatrogenic retinal breaks, silicone oil tamponade, and the frequency of endodiathermy were significantly less in the anti-VEGF pre-treated group than in the vitrectomy alone group (p < 0.01). The postoperative findings showed that the incidences of early postoperative VH, postoperative RD were significantly less in the anti-VEGF pre-treated group than in the control group (p < 0.05). The pooled result of postoperative rubeosis iridis/neovascular glaucoma was borderline (p = 0.072) between cases and controls, while no statistically significant differences in BCVA at last follow-up and incidences of late postoperative VH were found between these two groups (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Anti-VEGF injection prior to small gauge vitrectomy in PDR patients might facilitate easier surgical procedure and reduce intra- and postoperative complications. Further studies are needed to verify our findings and evaluate the optimal interval and dosage for preoperative anti-VEGF injection.
Topics: Humans; Diabetic Retinopathy; Vitrectomy; Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Retinal Perforations; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factors; Iatrogenic Disease; Vitreous Hemorrhage; Intravitreal Injections; Diabetes Mellitus
PubMed: 36972566
DOI: 10.1159/000530231 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2023Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) is an advanced complication of diabetic retinopathy that can cause blindness. It consists of the presence of new vessels in the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) is an advanced complication of diabetic retinopathy that can cause blindness. It consists of the presence of new vessels in the retina and vitreous haemorrhage. Although panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) is the treatment of choice for PDR, it has secondary effects that can affect vision. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF), which produces an inhibition of vascular proliferation, could improve the vision of people with PDR.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of anti-VEGFs for PDR and summarise any relevant economic evaluations of their use.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2022, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP. We did not use any date or language restrictions. We last searched the electronic databases on 1 June 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anti-VEGFs to another active treatment, sham treatment, or no treatment for people with PDR. We also included studies that assessed the combination of anti-VEGFs with other treatments. We excluded studies that used anti-VEGFs in people undergoing vitrectomy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias (RoB) for all included trials. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or the mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 new studies in this update, bringing the total to 23 RCTs with 1755 participants (2334 eyes). Forty-five per cent of participants were women and 55% were men, with a mean age of 56 years (range 48 to 77 years). The mean glycosylated haemoglobin (Hb1Ac) was 8.45% for the PRP group and 8.25% for people receiving anti-VEGFs alone or in combination. Twelve studies included people with PDR, and participants in 11 studies had high-risk PDR (HRPDR). Twelve studies were of bevacizumab, seven of ranibizumab, one of conbercept, two of pegaptanib, and one of aflibercept. The mean number of participants per RCT was 76 (ranging from 15 to 305). Most studies had an unclear or high RoB, mainly in the blinding of interventions and outcome assessors. A few studies had selective reporting and attrition bias. No study reported loss or gain of 3 or more lines of visual acuity (VA) at 12 months. Anti-VEGFs ± PRP probably increase VA compared with PRP alone (mean difference (MD) -0.08 logMAR, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.04; I = 28%; 10 RCTS, 1172 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGFs ± PRP may increase regression of new vessels (MD -4.14 mm, 95% CI -6.84 to -1.43; I = 75%; 4 RCTS, 189 eyes; low-certainty evidence) and probably increase a complete regression of new vessels (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.24; I = 46%; 5 RCTS, 405 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGFs ± PRP probably reduce vitreous haemorrhage (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.90; I = 0%; 6 RCTS, 1008 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGFs ± PRP may reduce the need for vitrectomy compared with eyes that received PRP alone (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.93; I = 43%; 8 RCTs, 1248 eyes; low-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGFs ± PRP may result in little to no difference in the quality of life compared with PRP alone (MD 0.62, 95% CI -3.99 to 5.23; I = 0%; 2 RCTs, 382 participants; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if anti-VEGFs ± PRP compared with PRP alone had an impact on adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). We did not find differences in visual acuity in subgroup analyses comparing the type of anti-VEGFs, the severity of the disease (PDR versus HRPDR), time to follow-up (< 12 months versus 12 or more months), and treatment with anti-VEGFs + PRP versus anti-VEGFs alone. The main reasons for downgrading the certainty of evidence included a high RoB, imprecision, and inconsistency of effect estimates.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Anti-VEGFs ± PRP compared with PRP alone probably increase visual acuity, but the degree of improvement is not clinically meaningful. Regarding secondary outcomes, anti-VEGFs ± PRP produce a regression of new vessels, reduce vitreous haemorrhage, and may reduce the need for vitrectomy compared with eyes that received PRP alone. We do not know if anti-VEGFs ± PRP have an impact on the incidence of adverse events and they may have little or no effect on patients' quality of life. Carefully designed and conducted clinical trials are required, assessing the optimal schedule of anti-VEGFs alone compared with PRP, and with a longer follow-up.
Topics: Aged; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Diabetes Mellitus; Diabetic Retinopathy; Ranibizumab; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Vitreous Hemorrhage
PubMed: 36939655
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008721.pub3 -
Medicine Mar 2023We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the role of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in ovarian reserve functions. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the role of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in ovarian reserve functions.
METHODS
The PECO strategy was employed. Women of reproductive age (Population) and with IBD (Exposure) were compared with healthy women of reproductive age (Comparison) to evaluate the ovarian reserve function (Outcome). Two reviewers searched three databases as well as relevant gray literature. After following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, RevMan 5.0 software and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) scoring were used to analyze and summarize the data included in the studies. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021267804).
RESULTS
The search yielded 367 studies, out of which 13 were selected for full-text evaluation, and finally, seven studies were included in our research. An analysis of ovarian reserve function in IBD women of reproductive age and healthy women revealed that the ovarian reserve function was lower in IBD women of reproductive age than in healthy women (P < .01, I2 = 81%); the ovarian reserve function was significantly lower in women with IBD in remission than in healthy women (P < .01, I2 = 0%), and ovarian reserve function was lower in IBD women of reproductive age taking thalidomide than in healthy women (P < .01, I2 = 18%).
CONCLUSION
IBD could reduce ovarian reserve function in women of reproductive age, and patients should plan for conception as soon as possible under permissible conditions.
Topics: Humans; Female; Ovarian Reserve; Reproduction; Infertility, Female; Thalidomide; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases
PubMed: 36930072
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000033113 -
Frontiers in Public Health 2023The rising prevalence of myopia is a major global public health concern. Economic evaluation of myopia interventions is critical for maximizing the benefits of treatment... (Review)
Review
The rising prevalence of myopia is a major global public health concern. Economic evaluation of myopia interventions is critical for maximizing the benefits of treatment and the healthcare system. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of interventions for treating myopia. Five databases were searched - Embase, Emcare, PubMed, Web of Science, and ProQuest - from inception to July 2022 and a total of 2,099 articles were identified. After careful assessments, 6 studies met the eligibility criteria. The primary outcomes of this systematic review were costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The secondary outcomes included utility values and net monetary benefits (NMB). One study determined the cost-effectiveness of photorefractive screening plus treatment with 0.01% atropine, 2 studies examined cost-effectiveness of corneal refractive surgery, and 3 studies evaluated cost-effectiveness of commonly used therapies for pathologic myopia. Corneal refractive surgeries included laser keratomileusis (LASIK), femtosecond laser-assisted keratomileusis (FS-LASIK), photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), and small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). Interventions for pathologic myopia included ranibizumab, conbercept, and photodynamic therapy (PDT). At an incremental cost of NZ$ 18 (95% CI 15, 20) (US$ 11) per person, photorefractive screening plus 0.01% atropine resulted in an ICER of NZ$ 1,590/QALY (US$ 1,001/QALY) (95% CI NZ$ 1,390, 1,791) for an incremental QALY of 0.0129 (95% CI 0.0127, 0.0131). The cost of refractive surgery in Europe ranged from €3,075 to €3,123 ([US$4,046 to $4,109 - adjusted to 2021 inflation). QALYs associated with these procedures were 23 (FS-LASIK) and 24 (SMILE and PRK) with utility values of 0.8 and ICERs ranging from approximately €14 (US$17)/QALY to €19 (US$23)/QALY. The ICER of LASIK was US$683/diopter gained (inflation-adjusted). The ICER of ranibizumab and PDT were £8,778 (US$12,032)/QALY and US$322,460/QALY respectively, with conbercept yielding a saving of 541,974 RMB (US$80,163)/QALY, respectively. The use of 0.01% atropine and corneal refractive surgery were cost-effective for treating myopia. Treating pathologic myopia with ranibizumab and conbercept were more cost-effective than PDT. Prevention of myopia progression is more cost-effective than treating pathologic myopia.
Topics: Humans; Visual Acuity; Cost-Effectiveness Analysis; Ranibizumab; Myopia; Atropine Derivatives
PubMed: 36923029
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1093836 -
Medicine Mar 2023The triple combination of programmed cell death 1 (PD1)/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PDL1) inhibitors, radiotherapy (RT), and anti-angiogenesis agents has been widely... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The triple combination of programmed cell death 1 (PD1)/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PDL1) inhibitors, radiotherapy (RT), and anti-angiogenesis agents has been widely used in the treatment of solid tumors and has shown positive efficacy. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PD1/PDL1 inhibitors combined with anti-angiogenic agents and RT for the treatment of solid cancers.
METHODS
A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases was conducted from inception to October 31, 2022. Studies involving patients with solid cancers who received PD1/PDL1 inhibitors combined with RT and anti-angiogenic agents treatment that reported overall response rate, complete remission rate, disease control rate, and adverse events (AEs) were included. A random-effects or fixed-effects model was used for the pooled rates, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined for all outcomes. The quality of the included literature was assessed using the methodological index for nonrandomized studies critical appraisal checklist. Egger test was used to assess the publication bias in the included studies.
RESULTS
Ten studies (4 nonrandomized controlled trials and 6 single-arm trials), including 365 patients, were identified and included in the meta-analysis. The pooled overall response rate after treatment with PD1/PDL1 inhibitors combined with RT and anti-angiogenic agents was 59% (95% CI: 48-70%), whereas the disease control rate and complete remission rate were 92% (95% CI: 81-103%) and 48% (95% CI: 35-61%), respectively. Moreover, the meta-analysis showed that compared with triple-regimen, monotherapy or dual-combination treatment did not improve overall survival (hazard ratio = 0.499, 95% CI: 0.399-0.734) and progression-free survival (hazard ratio = 0.522, 95% CI: 0.352-0.774). The pooled rate of grade 3 to 4 AEs was 26.9% (95% CI: 7.8%-45.9), and the common AEs to triple therapy included leukopenia (25%), thrombocytopenia (23.8%), fatigue (23.2%), gastrointestinal discomfort (22%), increased alanine aminotransferase (22%), and neutropenia (21.4%).
CONCLUSION
In the treatment of solid tumors, PD1/PDL1 inhibitors combined with RT and anti-angiogenic drugs achieved a positive response and better survival benefits than monotherapy or dual therapy. In addition, combination therapy is tolerable and safe.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO ID: CRD42022371433.
Topics: Humans; Neoplasms; Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Immunotherapy
PubMed: 36897735
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000033204