-
Behavioural Brain Research Nov 2013The serotonin syndrome (SS) is a potentially life-threatening disorder in humans which is induced by ingestion of an overdose or by combination of two or more serotonin... (Review)
Review
The serotonin syndrome (SS) is a potentially life-threatening disorder in humans which is induced by ingestion of an overdose or by combination of two or more serotonin (5-HT)-enhancing drugs. In animals, acute administration of direct and indirect 5-HT agonists also leads to a set of behavioral and autonomic responses. In the current review, we provide an overview of the existing versions of the animal model of the SS. With a focus on studies in rats and mice, we analyze the frequency of behavioral and autonomic responses following administration of 5-HT-enhancing drugs and direct 5-HT agonists administered alone or in combination, and we briefly discuss the receptor mediation of these responses. Considering species differences, we identify a distinct set of behavioral and autonomic responses that are consistently observed following administration of direct and indirect 5-HT agonists. Finally, we discuss the importance of a standardized assessment of SS responses in rodents and the utility of animal models of the SS in translational studies, and provide suggestions for future research.
Topics: Animals; Disease Models, Animal; Humans; Mice; Rats; Serotonin Agents; Serotonin Syndrome
PubMed: 24004848
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2013.08.045 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2005It has been postulated that monoamine oxidase B (MAO-B) inhibitors alter disease progression in Parkinson's disease (PD). Clinical trials have produced conflicting... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
It has been postulated that monoamine oxidase B (MAO-B) inhibitors alter disease progression in Parkinson's disease (PD). Clinical trials have produced conflicting results.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the evidence from randomized controlled trials for the effectiveness and safety of long-term use of MAO-B inhibitors in early PD.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (last searched 18th August 2004) and EMBASE (last searched 18th August 2004). We also handsearched neurology and movement disorders conference proceedings, checked reference lists of relevant studies and contacted other researchers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought to include all unconfounded randomized controlled trials that compared a MAO-B inhibitor with control, in the presence or absence of levodopa or dopamine agonists, in patients with early PD and where treatment and follow up lasted at least one year.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed the methodological quality, and extracted the data. A small amount of additional data was provided by the original authors. Random-effects models were used to analyse results, where appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS
Ten trials were included (a total of 2422 patients), nine using selegiline, one using lazabemide. The methodological quality was reasonable although concealment of allocation was definitely adequate in only four trials. The mean follow up was for 5.8 years. MAO-B inhibitors were not associated with a significant increase in deaths (odds ratio (OR) 1.15; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.44). They provided small benefits over control in impairment (weighted mean difference (WMD) for change in motor UPDRS score was 3.81 points less with MAO-B inhibitors; 95% CI 2.27 to 5.36) and disability (WMD for change in UPDRS ADL score was 1.50 less; 95% CI 0.48 to 2.53) at one year which, although statistically significant, were not clinically significant. There was a marked levodopa-sparing effect with MAO-B inhibitors which was associated with a significant reduction in motor fluctuations (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.94) but not dyskinesia (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.25). The reduction in motor fluctuations was, however, not robust in sensitivity analyses. Although adverse events were generally mild and infrequent, withdrawals due to side-effects were higher (OR 2.36; 95% CI 1.32 to 4.20) with MAO-B inhibitors.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
MAO-B inhibitors do not appear to delay disease progression but may have a beneficial effect on motor fluctuations. There was no statistically significant effect on deaths although the confidence interval does not exclude a small increase with MAO-B inhibitors. At present we do not feel these drugs can be recommended for routine use in the treatment of early Parkinson's disease but further randomized controlled trials should be carried out to clarify, in particular, their effect on deaths and motor complications.
Topics: Antiparkinson Agents; Dopamine Agonists; Humans; Levodopa; Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors; Parkinson Disease; Picolinic Acids; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selegiline
PubMed: 16034956
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004898.pub2 -
PloS One 2016We aimed to compare the safety of antidepressants for the treatment of persistent depressive disorder (PDD) with each other and with placebo. We conducted a systematic... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
We aimed to compare the safety of antidepressants for the treatment of persistent depressive disorder (PDD) with each other and with placebo. We conducted a systematic electronic search and included randomized controlled trials that investigated antidepressants for the treatment of PDD in adults. Outcomes were the incidence of experiencing any adverse event, specific adverse events and related treatment discontinuations. We analyzed the data using traditional and network meta-analyses. Thirty-four studies that comprised 4,769 patients and examined 20 individual agents in nine substance classes were included. Almost all analyzed substance classes were associated with higher discontinuation rates than placebo including tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs), antipsychotics, and the serotonin antagonist and reuptake inhibitor (SARI) trazodone. The odds of experiencing any adverse event were significantly higher for TCAs and serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) compared to placebo. Pairwise comparisons among the substance classes revealed that more patients receiving TCAs or SNRIs experienced any adverse event and that more patients receiving TCAs or the SARI trazodone discontinued treatment. The complementary treatment with acetyl-l-carnitine showed lower rates of experiencing any adverse event and related discontinuations than all other comparators. TCAs were primarily associated with (anti-)cholinergic and sedating adverse events. SSRIs primarily showed gastrointestinal adverse events. Patients treated with the antipsychotic amisulpride were more likely to manifest weight gain and endocrine adverse events. The comparative evidence for further agents was insufficient or lacking. The identified safety differences may be used to inform the selection among the antidepressants.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Depression; Humans
PubMed: 27187783
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153380 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2022Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized the current anticancer therapies, a considerable proportion of patients are found to hardly benefit from...
An Up-To-Date Investigation Into the Correlation Between Proton Pump Inhibitor Use and the Clinical Efficacy of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Advanced Solid Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
BACKGROUND
Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized the current anticancer therapies, a considerable proportion of patients are found to hardly benefit from these drugs. Accumulating studies have demonstrated that concomitant proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use may affect the clinical efficacy of ICIs; however, their results are inconsistent. In this study, based on updated evidence, we aimed to perform a meta-analysis to clarify the prognostic significance of PPI use in advanced solid cancer patients receiving ICI therapy.
METHODS
Eligible literature was searched using PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMBASE, and other network resources before July 2021. Clinical outcome was evaluated using overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The correlation of PPI use with OS or PFS was determined based on hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
A total of 17 studies enrolling 9,978 ICI-treated cancer patients were included in our meta-analysis. The global analysis demonstrated that PPI use was significantly correlated with worse OS [HR = 1.29 (1.10-1.50)] instead of PFS [HR = 1.19 (0.98-1.44)] in solid cancer patients receiving ICI therapy. In a subgroup analysis, the negative correlation of PPI use with ICI efficacy was significant in patients with non-small cell lung cancer [PFS, HR = 1.27 (1.10-1.47)] and urothelial carcinoma [OS, HR = 1.55 (1.31-1.84), PFS, HR = 1.52 (1.13-2.06)] and mixed cohorts containing multiple cancer types [OS, HR = 1.40 (1.16-1.69)], while an opposite result was observed in the PFS of patients with melanoma [HR = 0.48 (0.25-0.90)]. Moreover, the unfavorable prognostic impact of PPI use was also significant in patients over 65 years old [OS, HR = 1.28 (1.05-1.55), PFS, HR = 1.32 (1.12-1.56)] or those receiving anti-PD-1 [OS, HR = 1.37 (1.04-1.79)] or anti-PD-L1 therapies (OS, HR = 1.49 (1.30-1.69), PFS, HR = 1.34 (1.20-1.50). Finally, PPI use was significantly correlated with a worse prognosis in patients receiving PPIs 30 days before and/or after ICI initiation (OS, HR = 1.38 (1.18-1.62), PFS, HR = 1.23 (1.06-1.43)).
CONCLUSION
Although our global analysis revealed PPI use was not correlated with the PFS of ICI-treated patients, considering the results of our subgroup analysis, PPIs should be still cautiously used shortly before or during ICI therapy. Furthermore, more clinical validations and related mechanism investigations are of great necessity to clarify the clinical correlation of PPI use with ICI efficacy.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], PROSPERO [No. CRD42021243707].
PubMed: 35280736
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.753234 -
A systematic review on the effectiveness of treatment with antidepressants in fibromyalgia syndrome.Arthritis and Rheumatism Sep 2008To systematically review the efficacy of treatment of fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) with antidepressants. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the efficacy of treatment of fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) with antidepressants.
METHODS
We screened Medline, PsychINFO, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Library databases (through October 2007) and the reference sections of original studies, meta-analyses, and evidence-based guidelines and recommendations on antidepressants in FMS. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the treatment of FMS with antidepressants were analyzed. Inclusion criteria, study characteristics, quality, and all outcome measures were investigated.
RESULTS
Twenty-six of 167 studies were included. The main outcome variables reviewed were pain, fatigue, sleep, depressiveness, and quality of life. Amitriptyline, studied in 13 RCTs, was efficient in reducing pain with a moderate magnitude of benefit (pain reduction by a mean of 26%, improvement in quality of life by 30%). Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) were studied in 12 RCTs, which also showed positive results, except for 2 studies on citalopram and 1 on paroxetine. Three RCTs on the dual serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) duloxetine and milnacipran and 1 of the 2 RCTs using the monoamine oxidase inhibitor moclobemide reported a positive result. The longest study duration was 12 weeks.
CONCLUSION
Amitriptyline 25-50 mg/day reduces pain, fatigue, and depressiveness in patients with FMS and improves sleep and quality of life. Most SSRIs and the SNRIs duloxetine and milnacipran are probably also effective. Short-term treatment of patients with FMS using amitriptyline or another of the antidepressants that were effective in RCTs can be recommended. Data on long-term efficacy are lacking.
Topics: Amitriptyline; Antidepressive Agents; Databases, Bibliographic; Depression; Fatigue; Fibromyalgia; Humans; Pain; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 18759260
DOI: 10.1002/art.24000 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018Panic disorder is characterised by repeated, unexpected panic attacks, which represent a discrete period of fear or anxiety that has a rapid onset, reaches a peak within... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Panic disorder is characterised by repeated, unexpected panic attacks, which represent a discrete period of fear or anxiety that has a rapid onset, reaches a peak within 10 minutes, and in which at least four of 13 characteristic symptoms are experienced, including racing heart, chest pain, sweating, shaking, dizziness, flushing, stomach churning, faintness and breathlessness. It is common in the general population with a lifetime prevalence of 1% to 4%. The treatment of panic disorder includes psychological and pharmacological interventions. Amongst pharmacological agents, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the British Association for Psychopharmacology consider antidepressants, mainly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), as the first-line treatment for panic disorder, due to their more favourable adverse effect profile over monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). Several classes of antidepressants have been studied and compared, but it is still unclear which antidepressants have a more or less favourable profile in terms of effectiveness and acceptability in the treatment of this condition.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of antidepressants for panic disorder in adults, specifically:1. to determine the efficacy of antidepressants in alleviating symptoms of panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia, in comparison to placebo;2. to review the acceptability of antidepressants in panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia, in comparison with placebo; and3. to investigate the adverse effects of antidepressants in panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia, including the general prevalence of adverse effects, compared to placebo.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders' (CCMD) Specialised Register, and CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO up to May 2017. We handsearched reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All double-blind, randomised, controlled trials (RCTs) allocating adults with panic disorder to antidepressants or placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently checked eligibility and extracted data using a standard form. We entered data into Review Manager 5 using a double-check procedure. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details and settings. Primary outcomes included failure to respond, measured by a range of response scales, and treatment acceptability, measured by total number of dropouts for any reason. Secondary outcomes included failure to remit, panic symptom scales, frequency of panic attacks, agoraphobia, general anxiety, depression, social functioning, quality of life and patient satisfaction, measured by various scales as defined in individual studies. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome MAIN RESULTS: Forty-one unique RCTs including 9377 participants overall, of whom we included 8252 in the 49 placebo-controlled arms of interest (antidepressant as monotherapy and placebo alone) in this review. The majority of studies were of moderate to low quality due to inconsistency, imprecision and unclear risk of selection and performance bias.We found low-quality evidence that revealed a benefit for antidepressants as a group in comparison with placebo in terms of efficacy measured as failure to respond (risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.79; participants = 6500; studies = 30). The magnitude of effect corresponds to a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 7 (95% CI 6 to 9): that means seven people would need to be treated with antidepressants in order for one to benefit. We observed the same finding when classes of antidepressants were compared with placebo.Moderate-quality evidence suggested a benefit for antidepressants compared to placebo when looking at number of dropouts due to any cause (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.97; participants = 7850; studies = 30). The magnitude of effect corresponds to a NNTB of 27 (95% CI 17 to 105); treating 27 people will result in one person fewer dropping out. Considering antidepressant classes, TCAs showed a benefit over placebo, while for SSRIs and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRIs) we observed no difference.When looking at dropouts due to adverse effects, which can be considered as a measure of tolerability, we found moderate-quality evidence showing that antidepressants as a whole are less well tolerated than placebo. In particular, TCAs and SSRIs produced more dropouts due to adverse effects in comparison with placebo, while the confidence interval for SNRI, noradrenergic reuptake inhibitors (NRI) and other antidepressants were wide and included the possibility of no difference.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The identified studies comprehensively address the objectives of the present review.Based on these results, antidepressants may be more effective than placebo in treating panic disorder. Efficacy can be quantified as a NNTB of 7, implying that seven people need to be treated with antidepressants in order for one to benefit. Antidepressants may also have benefit in comparison with placebo in terms of number of dropouts, but a less favourable profile in terms of dropout due to adverse effects. However, the tolerability profile varied between different classes of antidepressants.The choice of whether antidepressants should be prescribed in clinical practice cannot be made on the basis of this review.Limitations in results include funding of some studies by pharmaceutical companies, and only assessing short-term outcomes.Data from the present review will be included in a network meta-analysis of psychopharmacological treatment in panic disorder, which will hopefully provide further useful information on this issue.
Topics: Adult; Agoraphobia; Antidepressive Agents; Humans; Numbers Needed To Treat; Panic Disorder; Patient Dropouts; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 29620793
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010676.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2016A panic attack is a discrete period of fear or anxiety that has a rapid onset, reaches a peak within 10 minutes and in which at least four of 13 characteristic symptoms... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
A panic attack is a discrete period of fear or anxiety that has a rapid onset, reaches a peak within 10 minutes and in which at least four of 13 characteristic symptoms are experienced, including racing heart, chest pain, sweating, shaking, dizziness, flushing, stomach churning, faintness and breathlessness. Panic disorder is common in the general population with a lifetime prevalence of 1% to 4%. The treatment of panic disorder includes psychological and pharmacological interventions. Amongst pharmacological agents, antidepressants and benzodiazepines are the mainstay of treatment for panic disorder. Different classes of antidepressants have been compared; and the British Association for Psychopharmacology, and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) consider antidepressants (mainly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs)) as the first-line treatment for panic disorder, due to their more favourable adverse effect profile over monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). In addition to antidepressants, benzodiazepines are widely prescribed for the treatment of panic disorder.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the evidence for the effects of antidepressants and benzodiazepines for panic disorder in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
The Specialised Register of the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group (CCMDCTR) to 11 September 2015. This register includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1950-), Embase (1974-) and PsycINFO (1967-). Reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews were handsearched. We contacted experts in this field for supplemental data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All double-blind randomised controlled trials allocating adult patients with panic disorder to antidepressants or benzodiazepines versus any other active treatment with antidepressants or benzodiazepines.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently checked eligibility and extracted data using a standard form. Data were entered in RevMan 5.3 using a double-check procedure. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details, settings and outcome measures in terms of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-five studies, including 6785 participants overall (of which 5365 in the arms of interest (antidepressant and benzodiazepines as monotherapy)) were included in this review; however, since studies addressed many different comparisons, only a few trials provided data for primary outcomes. We found low-quality evidence suggesting no difference between antidepressants and benzodiazepines in terms of response rate (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.47; participants = 215; studies = 2). Very low-quality evidence suggested a benefit for benzodiazepines compared to antidepressants in terms of dropouts due to any cause, even if confidence interval (CI) ranges from almost no difference to benefit with benzodiazepines (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.63; participants = 1449; studies = 7). We found some evidence suggesting that serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are better tolerated than TCAs (when looking at the number of patients experiencing adverse effects). We failed to find clinically significant differences between individual benzodiazepines. The majority of studies did not report details on random sequence generation and allocation concealment; similarly, no details were provided about strategies to ensure blinding. The study protocol was not available for almost all studies so it is difficult to make a judgment on the possibility of outcome reporting bias. Information on adverse effects was very limited.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The identified studies are not sufficient to comprehensively address the objectives of the present review. The majority of studies enrolled a small number of participants and did not provide data for all the outcomes specified in the protocol. For these reasons most of the analyses were underpowered and this limits the overall completeness of evidence. In general, based on the results of the current review, the possible role of antidepressants and benzodiazepines should be assessed by the clinician on an individual basis. The choice of which antidepressant and/or benzodiazepine is prescribed can not be made on the basis of this review only, and should be based on evidence of antidepressants and benzodiazepines efficacy and tolerability, including data from placebo-controlled studies, as a whole. Data on long-term tolerability issues associated with antidepressants and benzodiazepines exposure should also be carefully considered.The present review highlights the need for further higher-quality studies comparing antidepressants with benzodiazepines, which should be conducted with high-methodological standards and including pragmatic outcome measures to provide clinicians with useful and practical data. Data from the present review will be included in a network meta-analysis of psychopharmacological treatment in panic disorder, which will hopefully provide further useful information on this issue.
PubMed: 27618521
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011567.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2004As Parkinson's disease progresses the control of the symptoms often requires the addition of other drugs to levodopa. The principle aim of COMT inhibitor therapy is to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
As Parkinson's disease progresses the control of the symptoms often requires the addition of other drugs to levodopa. The principle aim of COMT inhibitor therapy is to increase the duration of effect of the levodopa dose and thus reduce the time patients spend in the relatively immobile 'off' phase.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and safety of adjuvant COMT inhibitor therapy versus active comparators in patients with Parkinson's disease, already established on levodopa and suffering from motor complications.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Electronic searches of the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2003), MEDLINE (1966-2003), EMBASE (1974-2003), were conducted. Grey literature was hand searched and the reference lists of identified studies and reviews examined. The manufacturers of COMT inhibitors were contacted.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of adjuvant COMT inhibitor therapy versus an active comparator in patients with a clinical diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson's disease and long-term complications of levodopa therapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data was abstracted independently by the authors and differences settled by discussion. The outcome measures used included Parkinson's disease rating scales, levodopa dosage, 'off' time measurements and the frequency of withdrawals and adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
Two trials were found that examined the efficacy of a COMT inhibitor against an active comparator (n = 349). Koller 1998 compared the efficacy of tolcapone versus pergolide (n = 203) over 12 weeks and TSG 1999 compared the efficacy of tolcapone versus bromocriptine (n = 146) over 8 weeks. No trials were found that compared entacapone with active comparators. Tolcapone produced similar benefits to bromocriptine in 'off' time reduction, motor impairment and disability ratings over three months of therapy. Tolcapone produced a greater reduction in levodopa dosage than bromocriptine. Tolcapone produced similar benefits to pergolide in levodopa dose reduction, motor impairment and disability ratings, and in generic health-related quality of life scales over the first two months of therapy. Tolcapone produced a greater improvement in the disease-specific quality of life scale PDQ-39 than pergolide. Nausea, constipation and orthostatic complaints were greater with agonist therapy, but otherwise the frequency of adverse events and withdrawals from treatment were similar with the two classes of adjuvant medication. One patient had significantly elevated liver enzymes whilst on tolcapone, but otherwise the frequency of adverse events and withdrawals from treatment were similar.
REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS
The two trials comparing tolcapone with the dopamine agonists bromocriptine and pergolide were underpowered to detect clinically relevant differences between them. This is based on medium-term evidence. No evidence was found comparing entacapone with active comparators. Further larger and longer-term trials are required to compare tolcapone with entacapone and COMT inhibitor therapy with alternative adjuvant classes of drug in later Parkinson's disease such as dopamine agonists and monoamine oxidase inhibitors.
Topics: Antiparkinson Agents; Benzophenones; Bromocriptine; Catechol O-Methyltransferase Inhibitors; Dopamine Agonists; Humans; Levodopa; Nitrophenols; Parkinson Disease; Pergolide; Tolcapone
PubMed: 15495118
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004553.pub2 -
PloS One 2023The triple combination of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) plus tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Triple combination of HAIC-FO plus tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The triple combination of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) plus tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is expected to have a synergistic anticancer effect in HCC. We conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the triple combination treatment in advanced HCC patients.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science databases were systematically searched for relevant studies from the inception of each database to May 10, 2023. All articles focusing the triple combination treatment of HAIC-FO plus TKI and ICIs for advanced HCC were eligible. The meta-analysis was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) for case series and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR). The secondary results were adverse events. Further meta-analysis of control studies demonstrated the superiority of the triple combination modality to TKI plus ICIs, and TKI alone.
RESULTS
Nine articles (four cohort studies and five one-arm studies) involving 777 advanced HCC patients were included in this meta-analysis. In terms of survival analysis, the pooled median PFS was 11 months (95% CI: 10.1-12.0 months) with low heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, p = 0.97). With regard to tumor response, the pooled ORR and DCR was 61.6% (I2=0%, p = 0.71) and 87.9% (I2 = 13%, p = 0.33) with low heterogeneity, respectively. As compared with TKIs plus ICIs, and TKIs alone, the triple combination thrapy was associated with improved median OS (HR=0.51, 95%CI 0.41-0.62) with low heterogeneity across studies (I2 = 0%, p = 0.47), median PFS (HR=0.51, 95%CI 0.41-0.64) with low heterogeneity across studies (I2 = 0%, p = 0.41), ORR (RR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.42-0.74) with high heterogeneity across studies (I2 = 69%, p = 0.02), and DCR (RR = 0.38, 95%CI 0.27-0.54) with low heterogeneity across studies (I2 = 14%, p = 0.32). The most common 3/4 AEs were elevated ALT and AST, thrombocytopenia, hypertension, nausea and vomiting in this meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
The triple combination therapy of HAIC-FO plus TKI and ICIs showed promising efficacy and safety in patients with advanced HCC.
REGISTRATION
The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (ID:CRD42023424281).
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Antineoplastic Agents; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors; Liver Neoplasms; Protein Kinase Inhibitors
PubMed: 37844117
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290644 -
International Journal of Molecular... Jun 2022Most ovarian cancer cases are diagnosed at an advanced stage (III or IV), in which a primary debulking surgery combined with adjuvant systemic chemotherapy is the... (Review)
Review
Most ovarian cancer cases are diagnosed at an advanced stage (III or IV), in which a primary debulking surgery combined with adjuvant systemic chemotherapy is the standard management. Since targeted therapy is less toxic to human cells than systemic chemotherapy, it has drawn much attention and become more popular. Angiogenesis is a critical process during the proliferation of ovarian cancer cells. Currently, many studies have put emphases on anti-angiogenetic medication, such as bevacizumab, the first and most investigated angiogenesis inhibitor that can exert anti-neoplastic effects. Bevacizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that has been approved for first-line maintenance treatment of advanced ovarian cancer. This review is a summary of current literature about the molecular mechanisms of actions, safety, and effects of bevacizumab for use in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Some common side effects of bevacizumab will be also discussed. As an inhibitor of angiogenesis, bevacizumab binds to circulating vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and thereby inhibits the binding of VEGF to its receptors on the surface of endothelial cells. Neutralization of VEGF prevents neovascularization and leads to apoptosis of tumor endothelial cells and a decrease in interstitial fluid pressure within the tumors, which allows greater capacity for chemotherapeutic drugs to reach specific targeted sites. Grossly, bevacizumab has demonstrated some significant therapeutic benefits in many randomized trials in combination with the standard chemotherapy for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Based on the available evidence, a higher dosage and a longer duration of bevacizumab appear to achieve better therapeutic effects and progression-free survival. On the other hand, patients with more severe diseases or at a higher risk of progression seem to benefit more from bevacizumab use. However, many unknown aspects of bevacizumab, including detailed mechanisms of actions, effectiveness, and safety for the treatment of ovarian cancer, warrant further investigation.
Topics: Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bevacizumab; Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial; Endothelial Cells; Female; Humans; Neovascularization, Pathologic; Ovarian Neoplasms; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 35805914
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23136911