-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2014Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) is a complication of diabetic retinopathy that can cause blindness. Although panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) is the treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) is a complication of diabetic retinopathy that can cause blindness. Although panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) is the treatment of choice for PDR, it has secondary effects that can affect vision. An alternative treatment such as 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.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2014, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to April 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to April 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 28 April 2014.
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.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias for all included trials. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or the mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 RCTs with 1005 participants (1131 eyes) of whom 57% were men. The median number of participants per RCT was 40 (range 15 to 261). The studies took place in Asia (three studies), Europe (two studies), the Middle East (seven studies), North America (three studies) and South America (three studies). Eight RCTs recruited people eligible for PRP, nine RCTs enrolled people with diabetes requiring vitrectomy and one RCT recruited people undergoing cataract surgery. The median follow-up was six months (range one to 12 months). Seven studies were at high risk of bias and the remainder were unclear risk of bias in one or more domains.Very low quality evidence from one study of 61 people showed that people treated with bevacizumab and PRP were less likely to lose 3 or more lines of visual acuity at 12 months compared with people treated with PRP alone (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.81). People treated with anti-VEGF had an increased chance of gaining 3 or more lines of visual acuity but the effect was imprecise and compatible with no effect or being less likely to gain vision (RR 6.78, 95% CI 0.37 to 125.95). No other study reported these two outcomes. On average, people treated with anti-VEGF (bevacizumab, pegaptanib or ranibizumab) had better visual acuity at 12 months compared with people not receiving anti-VEGF (MD -0.07 logMAR, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.02; 5 RCTs, 373 participants, low quality evidence). There was some evidence to suggest a regression of PDR with smaller leakage on fluorescein angiography but it was difficult to estimate a pooled result from the two trials reporting this outcome. People receiving anti-VEGF were less likely to have vitreous or pre-retinal haemorrhage at 12 months (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.65; 3 RCTs, 342 participants, low quality evidence). No study reported on fluorescein leakage or quality of life.All of the nine trials of anti-VEGF before or during vitrectomy investigated bevacizumab; most studies investigated bevacizumab before vitrectomy, one study investigated bevacizumab during surgery.People treated with bevacizumab and vitrectomy were less likely to lose 3 or more lines of visual acuity at 12 months compared with people given vitrectomy alone but the effect was imprecise and compatible with no effect or being more likely to lose vision (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.08 to 3.14; 3 RCTs, 94 participants, low quality evidence). People treated with bevacizumab were more likely to gain 3 or more lines of visual acuity (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.17; 3 RCTs, 94 participants, low quality evidence). On average, people treated with bevacizumab had better visual acuity at 12 months compared with people not receiving bevacizumab but there was uncertainty in the estimate (the CIs included 0; i.e. were compatible with no effect, and there was considerable inconsistency between studies; MD -0.24 logMAR, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.01; 6 RCTs, 335 participants, I(2) = 67%; low quality evidence). People receiving bevacizumab were less likely to have vitreous or pre-retinal haemorrhage at 12 months (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.52; 7 RCTs, 393 participants, low quality evidence). No study reported on quality of life.Reasons for downgrading the quality of the evidence included risk of bias in included studies, imprecision of the estimates, inconsistency of effect estimates and indirectness (few studies reported at 12 months).Adverse effects were rarely reported and there was no evidence for any increased risk with anti-VEGF but given the relatively few studies that reported these, and the low event rate, the power of the analysis to detect any differences was low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was very low or low quality evidence from RCTs for the efficacy and safety of anti-VEGF agents when used to treat PDR over and above current standard treatments. However, the results suggest that anti-VEGFs can reduce the risk of intraocular bleeding in people with PDR. Further carefully designed clinical trials should be able to improve this evidence.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Aptamers, Nucleotide; Bevacizumab; Diabetic Retinopathy; Female; Humans; Light Coagulation; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ranibizumab; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Visual Acuity; Vitrectomy; Vitreoretinopathy, Proliferative
PubMed: 25418485
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008721.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2014Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a common complication of diabetic retinopathy. Although grid or focal laser photocoagulation has been shown to reduce the risk of visual... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a common complication of diabetic retinopathy. Although grid or focal laser photocoagulation has been shown to reduce the risk of visual loss in DMO, or clinically significant macular oedema (CSMO), vision is rarely improved. Antiangiogenic therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) modalities is used to try to improve vision in people with DMO.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the effects in preserving and improving vision and acceptability, including the safety, compliance with therapy and quality of life, of antiangiogenic therapy with anti-VEGF modalities for the treatment of DMO.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2014, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to April 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to April 2014), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to April 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 28 April 2014.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any antiangiogenic drugs with an anti-VEGF mechanism of action versus another treatment, sham treatment or no treatment in people with DMO.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. The risk ratios (RR) for visual loss and visual gain of three or more lines of logMAR visual acuity were estimated at one year of follow-up (plus or minus six months) after treatment initiation.
MAIN RESULTS
Eighteen studies provided data on four comparisons of interest in this review. Participants in the trials had central DMO and moderate vision loss.Compared with grid laser photocoagulation, people treated with antiangiogenic therapy were more likely to gain 3 or more lines of vision at one year (RR 3.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.7 to 4.8, 10 studies, 1333 cases, high quality evidence) and less likely to lose 3 or more lines of vision (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.24, 7 studies, 1086 cases, high quality evidence). In meta-analyses, no significant subgroup difference was demonstrated between bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept for the two primary outcomes, but there was little power to detect a difference. The quality of the evidence was judged to be high, because the effect was large, precisely measured and did not vary across studies, although some studies were at high or unclear risk of bias for one or more domains. Regarding absolute benefit, we estimated that 8 out of 100 participants with DMO may gain 3 or more lines of visual acuity using photocoagulation whereas 28 would do so with antiangiogenic therapy, meaning that 100 participants need to be treated with antiangiogenic therapy to allow 20 more people (95% CI 13 to 29) to markedly improve their vision after one year. People treated with anti-VEGF on average had 1.6 lines better vision (95% CI 1.4 to 1.8) after one year compared to laser photocoagulation (9 studies, 1292 cases, high quality evidence). To achieve this result, seven to nine injections were delivered in the first year and three or four in the second, in larger studies adopting either as needed regimens with monthly monitoring or fixed regimens.In other analyses antiangiogenic therapy was more effective than sham (3 studies on 497 analysed participants, high quality evidence) and ranibizumab associated with laser was more effective than laser alone (4 studies on 919 participants, high quality evidence).Ocular severe adverse events, such as endophthalmitis, were rare in the included studies. Meta-analyses conducted for all antiangiogenic drugs compared with either sham or photocoagulation did not show a significant difference regarding serious systemic adverse events (15 studies, 441 events in 2985 participants, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.17), arterial thromboembolic events (14 studies, 129 events in 3034 participants, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.25) and overall mortality (63 events in 3562 participants, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.47). We judged the quality of the evidence on adverse effects as moderate due to partial reporting of safety data and the exclusion of participants with previous cardiovascular events in some studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is high quality evidence that antiangiogenic drugs provide a benefit compared to current therapeutic options for DMO, that is grid laser photocoagulation, in clinical trial populations at one or two years. Future research should investigate differences between drugs, effectiveness under real-world monitoring and treatment conditions, and safety in high-risk populations, particularly regarding cardiovascular risk.
Topics: Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Aptamers, Nucleotide; Bevacizumab; Diabetic Retinopathy; Humans; Laser Coagulation; Macular Edema; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ranibizumab; Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor; Recombinant Fusion Proteins; Triamcinolone; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 25342124
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007419.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2014Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the most common cause of uncorrectable severe vision loss in people aged 55 years and older in the developed world. Choroidal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the most common cause of uncorrectable severe vision loss in people aged 55 years and older in the developed world. Choroidal neovascularization (CNV) secondary to neovascular AMD accounts for most AMD-related severe vision loss. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents, injected intravitreally, aim to block the growth of abnormal blood vessels in the eye to prevent vision loss and, in some instances, improve vision.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate: (1) the ocular and systemic effects of, and quality of life associated with, intravitreally injected anti-VEGF agents (pegaptanib, ranibizumab, and bevacizumab) for the treatment of neovascular AMD compared with no anti-VEGF treatment; and (2) the relative effects of one anti-VEGF agent compared with another when administered in comparable dosages and regimens.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2014, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to March 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to March 2014), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to March 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We used no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 27 March 2014.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated pegaptanib, ranibizumab, or bevacizumab versus each other or a control treatment (e.g., sham treatment or photodynamic therapy). All trials followed participants for at least one year.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We contacted trial authors for additional data. We analyzed outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs). We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 12 RCTs including a total of 5496 participants with neovascular AMD (the number of participants per trial ranged from 28 to 1208). One trial compared pegaptanib, three trials ranibizumab, and two trials bevacizumab versus controls; six trials compared bevacizumab with ranibizumab. Four trials were conducted by pharmaceutical companies; none of the eight studies which evaluated bevacizumab were funded by pharmaceutical companies. The trials were conducted at various centers across five continents (North and South America, Europe, Asia and Australia). The overall quality of the evidence was very good, with most trials having an overall low risk of bias.When compared with control treatments, participants who received any of the three anti-VEGF agents were more likely to have gained 15 letters or more of visual acuity, lost fewer than 15 letters of visual acuity, and had vision 20/200 or better after one year of follow up. Visual acuity outcomes after bevacizumab and ranibizumab were similar when the same regimens were compared in the same RCTs, despite the substantially lower cost for bevacizumab compared with ranibizumab. No trial directly compared pegaptanib with other anti-VEGF agents; however, when compared with controls, ranibizumab or bevacizumab yielded larger improvements in visual acuity outcomes than pegaptanib.Participants treated with anti-VEGFs showed improvements in morphologic outcomes (e.g., size of CNV or central retinal thickness) compared with participants not treated with anti-VEGF agents. There was less reduction in central retinal thickness among bevacizumab-treated participants than among ranibizumab-treated participants after one year (MD -13.97 μm; 95% confidence interval (CI) -26.52 to -1.41); however, this difference is within the range of measurement error and we did not interpret it as being clinically meaningful.Ocular inflammation and increased intraocular pressure after intravitreal injection were the most frequently reported serious ocular adverse events. Endophthalmitis was reported in fewer than 1% of anti-VEGF treated participants; no cases were reported in control groups. The occurrence of serious systemic adverse events was comparable across anti-VEGF-treated groups and control groups; however, the numbers of events and trial participants may have been insufficient to detect a meaningful difference between groups. Data for visual function, quality of life, and economic outcomes were sparsely measured and reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The results of this review indicate the effectiveness of anti-VEGF agents (pegaptanib, ranibizumab, and bevacizumab) in terms of maintaining visual acuity; ranibizumab and bevacizumab were also shown to improve visual acuity. The information available on the adverse effects of each medication do not suggest a higher incidence of potentially vision-threatening complications with intravitreal injection compared with control interventions; however, clinical trial sample sizes may not have been sufficient to detect rare safety outcomes. Research evaluating variable dosing regimens with anti-VEGF agents, effects of long-term use, combination therapies (e.g., anti-VEGF treatment plus photodynamic therapy), and other methods of delivering the agents should be incorporated into future Cochrane reviews.
Topics: Aged; Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Aptamers, Nucleotide; Choroidal Neovascularization; Humans; Intravitreal Injections; Macular Degeneration; Middle Aged; Porphyrins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ranibizumab; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Verteporfin; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 25170575
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005139.pub3 -
Indian Journal of Ophthalmology Jul 2014To systematically collate and evaluate the evidence from recent SRs of bevacizumab for neo-vascular age related macular degeneration. (Review)
Review
The methodological quality of systematic reviews comparing intravitreal bevacizumab and alternates for neovascular age related macular degeneration: A systematic review of reviews.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically collate and evaluate the evidence from recent SRs of bevacizumab for neo-vascular age related macular degeneration.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Literature searches were carried out in Medline, Embase, Cochrane databases for all systematic reviews (SRs) on the effectiveness of bevacizumab for neo-vascular age related macular degeneration, published between 2000 and 2013. Titles and abstracts were assessed against the inclusion/exclusion criteria using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) study eligibility form. Data was extracted using the JBI data extraction form. The quality of the SRs was assessed using JBI critical appraisal checklist for SRs. Decisions on study eligibility and quality were made by two reviewers; any disagreements were resolved by discussion.
RESULTS
Nine relevant reviews were identified from 30 citations, of which 5 reviews fulfilled the review's inclusion criteria. All 5 reviews showed bevacizumab to be effective for neovascular AMD in the short-term when used alone or in combination with PDT or Pegaptanib. The average quality score of the reviews was 7; 95% confidence interval 6.2 to 7.8 (maximum possible quality score is 10). The selection and publication bias were not addressed in all included reviews. Three-fifth of the reviews had a quality score of 7 or lower, these reviews had some methodological limitations, search strategies were only identified in 2 (40%) reviews, independent study selection and quality assessment of included studies (4 (80%)) were infrequently performed.
CONCLUSION
Overall, the reviews on the effectiveness of intravitreal/systemic bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular generation (AMD) received good JBI quality scores (mean score = 7.0 points), with a few exceptions. The study also highlights the suboptimal reporting of SRs on this topic. Reviews with poor methodology may limit the validity of the reported results; hence efforts should be made to improve the design, reporting and publication of SRs across all journals.
Topics: Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Aptamers, Nucleotide; Bevacizumab; Humans; Intravitreal Injections; Macular Degeneration; Retinal Neovascularization; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 25116765
DOI: 10.4103/0301-4738.138615 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2014Central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) is a relatively common retinal vascular disorder in which macular oedema may develop, with a consequent reduction in visual acuity.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) is a relatively common retinal vascular disorder in which macular oedema may develop, with a consequent reduction in visual acuity. Until recently there has been no treatment of proven benefit, but growing evidence supports the use of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the effectiveness and safety of anti-VEGF therapies for the treatment of macular oedema secondary to CRVO.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE (January 1950 to October 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to October 2013), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to October 2013), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (January 1937 to October 2013), OpenGrey, OpenSIGLE (January 1950 to October 2013), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en) and Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S). There were no language or date restrictions in the electronic search for trials. The electronic databases and clinical trials registers were last searched on 29th October 2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared intravitreal anti-VEGF agents of any dose or duration to sham injection or no treatment. We focused on studies that included individuals of any age or gender and a minimum of six months follow-up.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with a gain in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline of greater than or equal to 15 letters (3 lines) on the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of participants with a loss of 15 letters or more of BCVA, the mean change from baseline BCVA, the mean change in central retinal thickness (CRT), the number and type of complications or adverse outcomes, and the number of additional interventions administered. Where available, we also presented quality of life and economic data.
MAIN RESULTS
We found six RCTs that met the inclusion criteria after independent and duplicate review of the search results. These RCTs included 937 participants and compared outcomes at six months to sham injection for four anti-VEGF agents: aflibercept (VEGF Trap-Eye, Eylea), bevacizumab (Avastin), pegaptanib sodium (Macugen) and ranibizumab (Lucentis). Three trials were conducted in Norway, Sweden and the USA, and three trials were multicentre, one including centres in the USA, Canada, India, Israel, Argentina and Columbia, a second including centres in the USA, Australia, France, Germany, Israel, and Spain, and a third including centres in Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Australia, Japan, Singapore and South Korea. We performed meta-analysis on three key visual outcomes, using data from up to six trials. High-quality evidence from six trials revealed that participants receiving intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment were 2.71 times more likely to gain at least 15 letters of visual acuity at six months compared to participants treated with sham injections (risk ratio (RR) 2.71; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 2.10 to 3.49). High-quality evidence from five trials suggested anti-VEGF treatment was associated with an 80% lower risk of losing at least 15 letters of visual acuity at six months compared to sham injection (RR 0.20; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.34). Moderate-quality evidence from three trials (481 participants) revealed that the mean reduction from baseline to six months in central retinal thickness was 267.4 µm (95% CI 211.4 µm to 323.4 µm) greater in participants treated with anti-VEGF than in participants treated with sham. The meta-analyses demonstrate that treatment with anti-VEGF is associated with a clinically meaningful gain in vision at six months. One trial demonstrated sustained benefit at 12 months compared to sham. No significant ocular or systemic safety concerns were identified in this time period.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared to no treatment, repeated intravitreal injection of anti-VEGF agents in eyes with CRVO macular oedema improved visual outcomes at six months. All agents were relatively well tolerated with a low incidence of adverse effects in the short term. Future trials should address the relative efficacy and safety of the anti-VEGF agents and other treatments, including intravitreal corticosteroids, for longer-term outcomes.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Aptamers, Nucleotide; Bevacizumab; Humans; Macular Edema; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ranibizumab; Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor; Recombinant Fusion Proteins; Retinal Vein Occlusion; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 24788977
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007325.pub3 -
PloS One 2014In Asia, up to 25% of breast cancer patients present with distant metastases at diagnosis. Given the heterogeneous survival probabilities of de novo metastatic breast... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
In Asia, up to 25% of breast cancer patients present with distant metastases at diagnosis. Given the heterogeneous survival probabilities of de novo metastatic breast cancer, individual outcome prediction is challenging. The aim of the study is to identify existing prognostic models for patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer and validate them in Asia.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We performed a systematic review to identify prediction models for metastatic breast cancer. Models were validated in 642 women with de novo metastatic breast cancer registered between 2000 and 2010 in the Singapore Malaysia Hospital Based Breast Cancer Registry. Survival curves for low, intermediate and high-risk groups according to each prognostic score were compared by log-rank test and discrimination of the models was assessed by concordance statistic (C-statistic).
RESULTS
We identified 16 prediction models, seven of which were for patients with brain metastases only. Performance status, estrogen receptor status, metastatic site(s) and disease-free interval were the most common predictors. We were able to validate nine prediction models. The capacity of the models to discriminate between poor and good survivors varied from poor to fair with C-statistics ranging from 0.50 (95% CI, 0.48-0.53) to 0.63 (95% CI, 0.60-0.66).
CONCLUSION
The discriminatory performance of existing prediction models for de novo metastatic breast cancer in Asia is modest. Development of an Asian-specific prediction model is needed to improve prognostication and guide decision making.
Topics: Asian People; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Malaysia; Neoplasm Metastasis; Oligonucleotides; Prognosis; Singapore
PubMed: 24695692
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093755 -
Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy Oct 2013This systematic review was performed to summarize published experience using low density lipoprotein particle number (LDL-P) to monitor the efficacy of lipid-lowering... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
This systematic review was performed to summarize published experience using low density lipoprotein particle number (LDL-P) to monitor the efficacy of lipid-lowering pharmacotherapies.
METHODS
Studies were identified from a literature search of MEDLINE (January 1, 2000 - June 30, 2012); and abstract searches of select conferences. All accepted studies reported mean (or median) nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)-based LDL-P values for at least 10 subjects receiving lipid lowering pharmacotherapy.
RESULTS
Searches revealed 36 studies (with 61 treatment arms) in which LDL-P measurements were reported pre- and post-treatment. Most studies also reported changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), but fewer studies reported changes in apolipoprotein B (apoB)(n = 20) and non-HDL-C (n = 28). Treatments included statins (22 arms/15 studies), fibrates (7 arms/7 studies), niacin (7 arms/6 studies), bile acid sequestrants (5 arms/2 studies), an anti-apoB oligonucleotide (2 arms/2 studies), combination therapies (8 arms/6 studies), anti-diabetics (5 arms/4 studies), and, other treatments (5 arms/2 studies). Lipid-lowering pharmacotherapy resulted in reductions in mean LDL-P in all but two studies. In several statin studies, the percent reductions in LDL-P were smaller than reductions in LDL-C, comparable changes were reported when LDL-P and apoB, were reported.
CONCLUSIONS
Study-level data from this systemic review establish that different lipid lowering agents can lead to discordance between LDL-P and LDL-C, therefore, basing LDL-lowering therapy only on the achievement of cholesterol goals may result in a treatment gap. Therefore, the use of LDL-P for monitoring lipid-lowering therapy, particularly for statins, can provide a more accurate assessment of residual cardiovascular risk.
Topics: Cardiovascular Diseases; Fibric Acids; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Hypoglycemic Agents; Lipoproteins, LDL; Niacin; Oligonucleotides
PubMed: 23893306
DOI: 10.1007/s10557-013-6477-6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2012Healing of venous leg ulcers is improved by the use of compression bandaging but some venous ulcers remain unhealed, and some people are unsuitable for compression... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Healing of venous leg ulcers is improved by the use of compression bandaging but some venous ulcers remain unhealed, and some people are unsuitable for compression therapy. Pentoxifylline, a drug which helps blood flow, has been used to treat venous leg ulcers.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of pentoxifylline (oxpentifylline or Trental 400) for treating venous leg ulcers, compared with a placebo or other therapies, in the presence or absence of compression therapy.
SEARCH METHODS
For this fifth update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 20 July 2012); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7); Ovid MEDLINE (2010 to July Week 2 2012); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, July 19, 2012); Ovid EMBASE (2010 to 2012 Week 28); and EBSCO CINAHL (2010 to July 13 2012).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials comparing pentoxifylline with placebo or other therapy in the presence or absence of compression, in people with venous leg ulcers.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
One review author extracted and summarised details from eligible trials using a coding sheet. One other review author independently verified data extraction.
MAIN RESULTS
No new trials were identified for this update. We included twelve trials involving 864 participants. The quality of trials was variable. Eleven trials compared pentoxifylline with placebo or no treatment. Pentoxifylline is more effective than placebo in terms of complete ulcer healing or significant improvement (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.24). Pentoxifylline plus compression is more effective than placebo plus compression (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.13). Pentoxifylline in the absence of compression appears to be more effective than placebo or no treatment (RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.49 to 3.39).More adverse effects were reported in people receiving pentoxifylline (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.22). Nearly three-quarters (72%) of the reported adverse effects were gastrointestinal.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Pentoxifylline is an effective adjunct to compression bandaging for treating venous ulcers and may be effective in the absence of compression. The majority of adverse effects were gastrointestinal disturbances.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Bandages; Combined Modality Therapy; Fibrinolytic Agents; Humans; Leg Ulcer; Pentoxifylline; Polydeoxyribonucleotides; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vasodilator Agents
PubMed: 23235582
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001733.pub3 -
Brazilian Journal of Medical and... Mar 2012Prenatal immune challenge (PIC) in pregnant rodents produces offspring with abnormalities in behavior, histology, and gene expression that are reminiscent of... (Review)
Review
Prenatal immune challenge (PIC) in pregnant rodents produces offspring with abnormalities in behavior, histology, and gene expression that are reminiscent of schizophrenia and autism. Based on this, the goal of this article was to review the main contributions of PIC models, especially the one using the viral-mimetic particle polyriboinosinic-polyribocytidylic acid (poly-I:C), to the understanding of the etiology, biological basis and treatment of schizophrenia. This systematic review consisted of a search of available web databases (PubMed, SciELO, LILACS, PsycINFO, and ISI Web of Knowledge) for original studies published in the last 10 years (May 2001 to October 2011) concerning animal models of PIC, focusing on those using poly-I:C. The results showed that the PIC model with poly-I:C is able to mimic the prodrome and both the positive and negative/cognitive dimensions of schizophrenia, depending on the specific gestation time window of the immune challenge. The model resembles the neurobiology and etiology of schizophrenia and has good predictive value. In conclusion, this model is a robust tool for the identification of novel molecular targets during prenatal life, adolescence and adulthood that might contribute to the development of preventive and/or treatment strategies (targeting specific symptoms, i.e., positive or negative/cognitive) for this devastating mental disorder, also presenting biosafety as compared to viral infection models. One limitation of this model is the incapacity to model the full spectrum of immune responses normally induced by viral exposure.
Topics: Animals; Disease Models, Animal; Female; Mice; Polynucleotides; Pregnancy; Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects; Rats; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 22392187
DOI: 10.1590/s0100-879x2012007500031 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2010Central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) is a common retinal vascular disorder in which macular edema (ME) may develop, with a consequent reduction in visual acuity. The... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) is a common retinal vascular disorder in which macular edema (ME) may develop, with a consequent reduction in visual acuity. The visual prognosis in CRVO-ME is poor in a substantial proportion of patients, especially those with the ischemic subtype, and until recently there has been no treatment of proven benefit. Macular grid laser treatment is ineffective, and whilst a few recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest short-term gains in visual acuity with intravitreal steroids for patients with non-ischemic CRVO-ME, there is no established treatment for ischemic CRVO-ME. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents have been used to treat ME resulting from a variety of causes and may represent a treatment option for CRVO-ME.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the effectiveness and safety of intravitreal anti-VEGF agents in the treatment of CRVO-ME.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 8), MEDLINE (January 1950 to August 2010), EMBASE (January 1980 to August 2010), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to August 2010), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (January 1937 to August 2010), OpenSIGLE (January 1950 to August 2010), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) and ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov). There were no language or date restrictions in the search for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 10 August 2010.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered RCTs that compared intravitreal anti-VEGF agents of any dose or duration to sham injection or no treatment. We focused on studies that included individuals of any age or gender with unilateral or bilateral disease and a minimum of six months follow up. Secondarily, we considered non-randomized studies with the same criteria, but did not conduct a separate electronic search for these.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
We found two RCTs that met the inclusion criteria after independent and duplicate review of the search results. These RCTs utilized different anti-VEGF agents which cannot be assumed to be directly comparable. We, therefore, performed no meta-analysis. Evidence from these trials and from other non-randomized case series is summarized in this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Ranibizumab and pegaptanib sodium have shown promise in the short-term treatment of non-ischemic CRVO-ME. However, effectiveness and safety data from larger RCTs with follow up beyond six months are not yet available. There are no RCT data on anti-VEGF agents in ischemic CRVO-ME. The use of anti-VEGF agents to treat this condition therefore remains experimental.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Aptamers, Nucleotide; Humans; Macular Edema; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ranibizumab; Retinal Vein Occlusion; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 20927757
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007325.pub2