-
Journal of Thoracic Oncology : Official... Jun 2023Lung cancer in never-smokers is the major cancer cause of death globally. We compared the efficacy of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening among... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Low-Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) Lung Cancer Screening in Asian Female Never-Smokers Is as Efficacious in Detecting Lung Cancer as in Asian Male Ever-Smokers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
INTRODUCTION
Lung cancer in never-smokers is the major cancer cause of death globally. We compared the efficacy of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening among never-smokers versus ever-smokers using systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
LDCT lung cancer screening studies that simultaneously included both ever-smoker and never-smoker participants published by April 30, 2021, were searched through PubMed and Scopus. Primary outcome measure was relative risk (RR) of lung cancer diagnosed among never-smokers versus ever-smokers.
RESULTS
A total of 14 studies (13 from Asia) were included (141,396 ever-smokers, 109,251 never-smokers, 1961 lung cancer cases diagnosed). RR of lung cancer diagnosed between ever-smokers versus never-smokers overall was 1.21 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-1.65), 1.37 (95% CI: 1.08-1.75) among males, and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.59-1.31) among females. RR was 1.78 (95% CI: 1.41-2.24) and 1.22 (95% CI: 0.89-1.68) for Asian female never-smokers versus male never-smokers and versus male ever-smokers, respectively, and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.65-1.50) versus high-risk ever-smokers (≥30 pack-years). Proportional meta-analysis revealed significantly more lung cancers diagnosed at first scan (95.4% [95% CI: 84.9-100.0] versus 70.9% [95% CI: 54.6-84.9], p = 0.010) and at stage 1 (88.5% [95% CI: 79.3-95.4] versus 79.7% [95% CI: 71.1-87.4], p = 0.071) among never-smokers versus ever-smokers, respectively. RR of lung cancer death and 5-year all-cause mortality in never-smokers versus ever-smokers was 0.27 (95% CI: 0.1-0.55, p < 0.001) and 0.13 (95% CI: 0.05-0.33, p < 0.001), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
The RR of lung cancer detected by LDCT screening among female never-smokers and male ever-smokers in Asia was statistically similar. Overall and lung cancer specific mortality from the lung cancer diagnosed from LDCT screening was significantly reduced among never-smokers compared to ever-smokers.
Topics: Male; Humans; Female; Lung Neoplasms; Smokers; Early Detection of Cancer; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Risk; Mass Screening
PubMed: 36775191
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtho.2023.01.094 -
Journal of the National Cancer Institute Apr 2023Multiple quality metrics have been recommended to ensure consistent, high-quality execution of screening tests for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers....
BACKGROUND
Multiple quality metrics have been recommended to ensure consistent, high-quality execution of screening tests for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers. However, minimal data exist evaluating the evidence base supporting these recommendations and the consistency of definitions and concepts included within and between cancer types.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review for each cancer type using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from 2010 to April 2020 to identify guidelines from screening programs or professional organizations containing quality metrics for tests used in breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening. We abstracted metrics' definitions, target performance levels, and related supporting evidence for test completeness, adequacy (sufficient visualization or collection), accuracy, and safety.
RESULTS
We identified 11 relevant guidelines with 20 suggested quality metrics for breast cancer, 5 guidelines with 9 metrics for cervical cancer, 13 guidelines with 18 metrics for colorectal cancer (CRC), and 3 guidelines with 7 metrics for lung cancer. These included 54 metrics related to adequacy (n = 6), test completeness (n = 3), accuracy (n = 33), and safety (n = 12). Target performance levels were defined for 30 metrics (56%). Ten (19%) were supported by evidence, all from breast and CRC, with no evidence cited to support metrics from cervical and lung cancer screening.
CONCLUSIONS
Considerably more guideline-recommended test performance metrics exist for breast and CRC screening than cervical or lung cancer. The domains covered are inconsistent among cancers, and few targets are supported by evidence. Clearer evidence-based domains and targets are needed for test performance metrics.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020179139.
Topics: Female; Humans; Early Detection of Cancer; Lung Neoplasms; Colorectal Neoplasms; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Mass Screening
PubMed: 36752508
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djad028 -
Lung Apr 2023International COVID-19 guidelines recommend thromboprophylaxis for non-critically ill inpatients to prevent thrombotic complications. It is still debated whether... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
International COVID-19 guidelines recommend thromboprophylaxis for non-critically ill inpatients to prevent thrombotic complications. It is still debated whether full-dose thromboprophylaxis reduces all-cause mortality. The main aim of this updated systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effect of full-dose heparin-based thromboprophylaxis on survival in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed across Pubmed/Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials, Clinicaltrials.gov, and medRxiv.org from inception to November 2022. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing full-dose heparin-based anticoagulation to prophylactic or intermediate dose anticoagulation or standard treatment in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was applied. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at the longest follow-up available.
RESULTS
We identified 6 multicenter RCTs involving 3297 patients from 13 countries across 4 continents. The rate of all-cause mortality was 6.2% (103/1662) in the full-dose group vs 7.7% (126/1635) in the prophylactic or intermediate dose group (Risk Ratio [RR] = 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.59-0.98; P = 0.037). The probabilities of any mortality difference and of NNT ≤ 100 were estimated at 98.2% and 84.5%, respectively. The risk of bias was low for all included RCTs and the strength of the evidence was "moderate."
CONCLUSION
Our meta-analysis of high-quality multicenter RCTs suggests that full-dose anticoagulation with heparin or low molecular weight heparin reduces all-cause mortality in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients.
STUDY REGISTRATION
PROSPERO, review no. CRD42022348993.
Topics: Humans; Heparin; Anticoagulants; COVID-19; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Blood Coagulation; Multicenter Studies as Topic
PubMed: 36738324
DOI: 10.1007/s00408-023-00599-6 -
Cureus Dec 2022Epithelioid sarcoma is a rare entity that shows a predilection for the young and middle-aged population. There are two subtypes, i.e., the distal or conventional type,...
Epithelioid sarcoma is a rare entity that shows a predilection for the young and middle-aged population. There are two subtypes, i.e., the distal or conventional type, which is located in distal extremities, and the proximal type, located in proximal areas of the extremities, pelvis, perineal, and genital region. The latter is characterized by more aggressive behavior, a higher recurrence rate, and poor prognosis. Histopathological and immunohistochemical diagnoses are key to correct and timely treatment and a higher survival rate. We report a case of a 41-year-old man who presented a palpable progressive growth mass in the hypogastrium. The disease time was of nine months, and the tumor was resected, but it recurred a few months later in the same location. Computed tomography (CT) scans showed images suggestive of lung metastasis and the patient had to undergo a second surgery. He received eight cycles of chemotherapy and a subsequent CT scan control showed the progression of the disease, so a new chemotherapy regimen was established. The patient received three cycles of chemotherapy without improvement, so he decided to discontinue treatment. His last outpatient medical consultation was in January 2022. A systematic review of the studies published in PubMed and Google Scholar was performed. We identified 291 articles, but only 41 reports and case series were included, with a total of 55 patients. It is important to include this type of tumor in the differential diagnosis of epithelial tumors due to its aggressive behavior. Correct and timely diagnosis is crucial to obtain lower recurrence rates, lower mortality, and higher survival rates in these patients.
PubMed: 36712724
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.32962 -
Cureus Dec 2022Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a worldwide health problem, particularly for pregnant women. This review assesses the effects of COVID-19 on pregnant women and... (Review)
Review
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a worldwide health problem, particularly for pregnant women. This review assesses the effects of COVID-19 on pregnant women and their infants. A systematic search was performed of studies published on PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Embase from January 2020 to January 2021, without restriction by language. This review included 27 studies (22 from China, one from the United States, one from Honduras, one from Italy, one from Iran, and one from Spain), which cumulatively evaluated 386 pregnant women with clinically confirmed COVID-19 and their 334 newborns. Of the 386 pregnant women, 356 had already delivered their infants, four had medical abortions at the time of research, 28 were still pregnant, and two died from COVID-19 before they were able to give birth. Cesarean sections were performed on 71% of pregnant women with COVID-19 to give birth. Fever and cough were common symptoms among women. Premature rupture of membranes, distress, and preterm birth were pregnancy complications. Low birth weight and a short gestational age were common outcomes for newborns. The common laboratory findings among pregnant women were lymphopenia, leukocytosis, and elevated levels of C-reactive protein. Chest computed tomography revealed abnormal viral lung changes in 73.3% of women. Eleven infants tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. There was no evidence of vertical transmission. Most infants were observed to have lymphopenia and thrombocytopenia. The clinical features of pregnant women were found to be similar to those of generally infected patients. There is evidence of adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes caused by COVID-19.
PubMed: 36694500
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.32787 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jan 2023The identification of novel prognostic biomarkers might enhance individualized management strategies in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Although... (Review)
Review
The identification of novel prognostic biomarkers might enhance individualized management strategies in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Although several patient characteristics are currently used to predict outcomes, the prognostic significance of the body mass index (BMI), a surrogate measure of excess fat mass, has not been specifically investigated until recently. We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus, from inception to July 2022, for studies investigating associations between the BMI and clinical endpoints in IPF. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist was used to assess the risk of bias. The PRISMA 2020 statement on the reporting of systematic reviews was followed. Thirty-six studies were identified (9958 IPF patients, low risk of bias in 20), of which 26 were published over the last five years. Significant associations between lower BMI values and adverse outcomes were reported in 10 out of 21 studies on mortality, four out of six studies on disease progression or hospitalization, and two out of three studies on nintedanib tolerability. In contrast, 10 out of 11 studies did not report any significant association between the BMI and disease exacerbation. Our systematic review suggests that the BMI might be useful to predict mortality, disease progression, hospitalization, and treatment-related toxicity in IPF (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022353363).
PubMed: 36675428
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12020498 -
Biomedicines Dec 2022Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) are common diseases that strongly impact the quality and length of life. Their coexistence... (Review)
Review
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) are common diseases that strongly impact the quality and length of life. Their coexistence is determined by overlap syndrome (OS). This systematic review aims to define the significance of these comorbidities according to the current state of knowledge. For this systematic review, we searched PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane for studies published between 2018 and 26 October 2022, to find original, observational, human studies published in English, where the diagnosis of COPD was according to the Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease guidelines and the diagnosis of OSA was based on polysomnography. The quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment tool for cohort and case-control studies, as well as its modification for cross-sectional studies. Of the 1548 records identified, 38 were eligible and included in this systematic review. The included studies covered a total population of 27,064 participants. This paper summarizes the most important, up-to-date information regarding OS, including the prevalence, meaning of age/gender/body mass index, polysomnography findings, pulmonary function, comorbidities, predicting OSA among COPD patients, and treatment of this syndrome.
PubMed: 36672523
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines11010016 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2023The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has led to significant mortality and morbidity, including a high incidence of related thrombotic events. There has been concern... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has led to significant mortality and morbidity, including a high incidence of related thrombotic events. There has been concern regarding hormonal contraception use during the COVID-19 pandemic, as this is an independent risk factor for thrombosis, particularly with estrogen-containing formulations. However, higher estrogen levels may be protective against severe COVID-19 disease. Evidence for risks of hormonal contraception use during the COVID-19 pandemic is sparse. We therefore conducted a living systematic review that will be updated as new data emerge on the risk of thromboembolism with hormonal contraception use in patients with COVID-19.
OBJECTIVES
To determine if use of hormonal contraception increases risk of venous and arterial thromboembolism in women with COVID-19. To determine if use of hormonal contraception increases other markers of COVID-19 severity including hospitalization in the intensive care unit, acute respiratory distress syndrome, intubation, and mortality. A secondary objective is to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, Global Health, and Scopus from inception to search update in March 2022. For the living systematic review, we monitored the literature monthly.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all published and ongoing studies of patients with COVID-19 comparing outcomes of those on hormonal contraception versus those not on hormonal contraception. This included case series and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
One review author extracted study data and this was checked by a second author. Two authors individually assessed risk of bias for the comparative studies using the ROBINS-I tool and a third author helped reconcile differences. For the living systematic review, we will publish updates to our synthesis every six months. In the event that we identify a study with a more rigorous study design than the current included evidence prior to the planned six-month update, we will expedite the synthesis publication.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three comparative NRSIs with 314,704 participants total and two case series describing 13 patients. The three NRSIs had serious to critical risk of bias in several domains and low study quality. Only one NRSI ascertained current use of contraceptives based on patient report; the other two used diagnostic codes within medical records to assess hormonal contraception use, but did not confirm current use nor indication for use. None of the NRSIs included thromboembolism as an outcome. Studies were not similar enough in terms of their outcomes, interventions, and study populations to combine with meta-analyses. We therefore narratively synthesized all included studies. Based on results from one NRSI, there may be little to no effect of combined hormonal contraception use on odds of mortality for COVID-19 positive patients (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 2.40; 1 study, 18,892 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two NRSIs examined hospitalization rates for hormonal contraception users versus non-users. Based on results from one NRSI, the odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 positive combined hormonal contraception users may be slightly decreased compared with non-users for patients with body mass index (BMI) under 35 kg/m (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.97; 1 study, 295,689 participants; very low-certainty evidence). According to results of the other NRSI assessing use of any type of hormonal contraception, there may be little to no effect on hospitalization rates for COVID-19 positive individuals (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.44; 1 study, 123 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We included two case series because no comparative studies directly assessed thromboembolism as an outcome. In a case series of six pediatric COVID-19 positive patients with pulmonary embolism, one (older than 15 years of age) was using combined hormonal contraception. In a second case series of seven COVID-19 positive patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, one was using oral contraceptives. One comparative study and one case series reported on intubation rates, but the evidence for both is very uncertain. In the comparative study of 123 COVID-19 positive patients (N = 44 using hormonal contraception and N = 79 not using hormonal contraception), no patients in either group required intubation. In the case series of seven individuals with cerebral venous thromboembolism, one oral contraceptive user and one non-user required intubation.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There are no comparative studies assessing risk of thromboembolism in COVID-19 patients who use hormonal contraception, which was the primary objective of this review. Very little evidence exists examining the risk of increased COVID-19 disease severity for combined hormonal contraception users compared to non-users of hormonal contraception, and the evidence that does exist is of very low certainty. The odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 positive users of combined hormonal contraceptives may be slightly decreased compared with those of hormonal contraceptive non-users, but the evidence is very uncertain as this is based on one study restricted to patients with BMI under 35 kg/m. There may be little to no effect of combined hormonal contraception use on odds of intubation or mortality among COVID-19 positive patients, and little to no effect of using any type of hormonal contraception on odds of hospitalization and intubation for COVID-19 patients. At a minimum, we noted no large effect for risk of increased COVID-19 disease severity among hormonal contraception users. We specifically noted gaps in pertinent data collection regarding hormonal contraception use such as formulation, hormone doses, and duration or timing of contraceptive use. Differing estrogens may have different thrombogenic potential given differing potency, so it would be important to know if a formulation contained, for example, ethinyl estradiol versus estradiol valerate. Additionally, we downgraded several studies for risk of bias because information on the timing of contraceptive use relative to COVID-19 infection and method adherence were not ascertained. No studies reported indication for hormonal contraceptive use, which is important as individuals who use hormonal management for medical conditions like heavy menstrual bleeding might have different risk profiles compared to individuals using hormones for contraception. Future studies should focus on including pertinent confounders like age, obesity, history of prior venous thromboembolism, risk factors for venous thromboembolism, and recent pregnancy.
Topics: Female; Humans; Contraceptive Agents; COVID-19; Estrogens; Hormonal Contraception; Pandemics; Thrombosis; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 36622724
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014908.pub2 -
Internal and Emergency Medicine Apr 2023Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). The optimal heparin regimen remains unknown and should balance... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). The optimal heparin regimen remains unknown and should balance thromboembolic and bleeding risks. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of standard or higher heparin regimens for the prevention of VTE in patients hospitalized due to COVID-19. We performed a systematic literature search; studies reporting on hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who received standard heparin prophylaxis vs. high (intermediate or therapeutic) heparin regimens were included if outcome events were reported by treatment group and more than 10 patients were included. Primary study outcome was in-hospital VTE. Secondary study outcomes were major bleeding (MB), all-cause death, fatal bleeding and fatal pulmonary embolism. Overall, 33 studies (11,387 patients) were included. Venous thromboembolic events occurred in 5.2% and in 8.2% of patients who received heparin prophylaxis with at high-dose or standard-dose, respectively (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55-0.90, I2 48.8%). MB was significantly higher in patients who received high- compared to the standard-dose (4.2% vs 2.2%, RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.47-2.56, I2 18.1%). Sub-analyses showed a slight benefit associated with high-dose heparin in patients admitted to non-intensive care unit (ICU) but not in those to ICU. No significant differences were observed for mortality outcomes. Heparin prophylaxis at high-dose reduces the risk of VTE, but increased the risk of MB compared to the standard-dose. No clinical benefit for heparin high-dose was observed for ICU setting, but its role in the non-ICU deserves further evaluation. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021252550.
Topics: Humans; Heparin; Venous Thromboembolism; Anticoagulants; COVID-19; Venous Thrombosis; Hemorrhage; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight
PubMed: 36580269
DOI: 10.1007/s11739-022-03159-7 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Mar 2023It is unclear how the efficacy of tezepelumab, approved for the treatment of type 2 high and low asthma, compares to the efficacy of other biologics for type 2-high... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
It is unclear how the efficacy of tezepelumab, approved for the treatment of type 2 high and low asthma, compares to the efficacy of other biologics for type 2-high asthma.
OBJECTIVES
We sought to conduct an indirect comparison of tezepelumab to dupilumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab in the treatment of eosinophilic asthma.
METHODS
The investigators conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analyses. They identified randomized controlled trials indexed in PubMed, Embase, or Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) between January 1, 2000, and August 12, 2022. Outcomes included exacerbation rates, prebronchodilator FEV, and the Asthma Control Questionnaire.
RESULTS
Ten randomized controlled trials (n = 9201) met eligibility. Tezepelumab (relative risk: 0.63; 95% credible interval [CI]: 0.46-0.86) was associated with significantly lower exacerbation rates than benralizumab and larger improvements in FEV compared to mepolizumab (mean difference [MD]: 66; 95% CI: -33 to 170) and benralizumab (MD: 62; 95% CI: -22 to 150), though the 95% CI crossed the null value of 0. Mepolizumab improved the Asthma Control Questionnaire score the most, but this improvement was not significantly different from that of tezepelumab (tezepelumab vs mepolizumab; MD: 0.14; 95% CI: -0.10 to 0.38). For efficacy by clinically important thresholds, tezepelumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab achieved a >99% probability of reducing exacerbation rates by ≥50% compared to placebo, but benralizumab had only a 66% probability of doing so. Tezepelumab and dupilumab had a probability of 1.00 of improving prebronchodilator FEV by ≥100 mL above placebo. Compared to mepolizumab, dupilumab had >90% chance for improving FEV by ≥50 mL, but none of the differences between biologics exceeded 100 mL.
CONCLUSIONS
In individuals with eosinophilic asthma, tezepelumab and dupilumab were associated with greater improvements (although below clinical thresholds) in exacerbation rates and lung function than benralizumab or mepolizumab.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Asthma; Pulmonary Eosinophilia; Biological Products
PubMed: 36538979
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2022.11.021