-
Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology 2015Taste is of great importance for the feeding process. Seen in this light, it is essential to investigate this sense in children as developing human beings. However,... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Taste is of great importance for the feeding process. Seen in this light, it is essential to investigate this sense in children as developing human beings. However, despite little variation in the use of tests that measure the gustatory capacity, there are still questions about the applicability and effective use of tools for quantitative assessment in children.
OBJECTIVE
To search the literature on quantitative instruments used for the evaluation of taste used in studies with children.
METHODS
A search was conducted in the PUBMED and Web of Science platforms, and subsequently, the identified articles were selected and reviewed. The descriptors and terms used were "taste," "child," "assessment," "diagnosis," and "dysgeusia". Original articles related to the theme in English, restricted to children and with no year limitation, were selected. Studies conducted in other stages of human development, exclusively or concurrently with the pediatric population; animal studies; literature review articles; dissertations and book chapters; and case studies and editorials were excluded. The data analysis was performed through a cataloging protocol created for this study, including the following points: author, research department, year, location, population/sample, age, purpose of the study, methods, and primary results.
RESULTS
5613 items were found. 5307 were excluded based on title, 248 by abstract analysis, and 43 by full text evaluation. Fifteen articles were selected for analysis; of these, six were repeated articles, and thus nine articles were selected for review.
CONCLUSION
The tests aiming at evaluation of taste were judiciously used, ensuring reliability for future research, which may employ methods similar to previous studies.
Topics: Child; Evaluation Studies as Topic; Humans; Reproducibility of Results; Taste
PubMed: 25458259
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2014.04.002 -
International Journal of... 2022With the global epidemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), vaccination rates are increasing globally. This study evaluated the relevant clinical manifestations of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
With the global epidemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), vaccination rates are increasing globally. This study evaluated the relevant clinical manifestations of vaccinated COVID-19 patients.
METHODS
We searched carefully in 11 databases such as PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Ovid, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database, Wan Fang Data, Sinomed, VIP Database, and Reading Showing Database up to 26 March 2022. To search for articles that have described the characteristics of vaccinated patients including epidemiological and clinical symptoms. Statistical analysis of the extracted data using STATA 14.0.
RESULTS
A total of 58 articles and 263,708 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients were included. Most of the patients in the vaccinated group had more asymptomatic infection and fewer severe illnesses. There were significant differences in ethnicity, and strain infected with COVID-19, and comorbidities (hyperlipidemia, diabetes, obesity, kidney disease, immunocompromised, cardiovascular disease, and tumor) and symptoms (fever, cough, gastrointestinal symptoms, neurological symptoms, and dysgeusia/anosmia) between vaccinated group and unvaccinated group. Oxygen support, use of steroid, days in hospital, hospital treatment, ICU treatment, death, and poor prognosis were also significantly different.
CONCLUSION
Compared with the vaccinated group, patients in the unvaccinated group had a more severe clinical manifestations. Vaccines are also protective for infected people.
Topics: Humans; Cardiovascular Diseases; China; COVID-19; Neoplasms; Research Design
PubMed: 36412572
DOI: 10.1177/03946320221141802 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2023Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) aims to avoid severe COVID-19 in asymptomatic people or those with mild symptoms, thereby decreasing hospitalization and death. It... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) aims to avoid severe COVID-19 in asymptomatic people or those with mild symptoms, thereby decreasing hospitalization and death. It remains to be evaluated for which indications and patient populations the drug is suitable.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care (SoC) compared to SoC with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treating COVID-19 or preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. To explore equity aspects in subgroup analyses. To keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review (LSR) approach and make new relevant studies available to readers in-between publication of review updates.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Scopus, and World Health Organization COVID-19 Research Database, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions and incorporating studies up to 15 May 2023. This is a LSR. We conduct update searches every two months and make them publicly available on the open science framework (OSF) platform.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC to SoC with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We screened all studies for research integrity. Studies were ineligible if they had been retracted, or if they were not prospectively registered including appropriate ethics approval.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology and used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: 1. to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19; 2. to treat inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, quality of life, (serious) adverse events, and viral clearance; 3. to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in postexposure prophylaxis (PEP); and 4. pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) scenarios: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, and (serious) adverse events. We explored inequity by subgroup analysis for elderly people, socially-disadvantaged people with comorbidities, populations from low-income countries and low- to middle-income countries, and people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds.
MAIN RESULTS
As of 15 May 2023, we included two RCTs with 2510 participants with mild and mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 in outpatient and inpatient settings comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC to SoC with or without placebo. All trial participants were without previous confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and at high risk for progression to severe disease. Randomization coincided with the Delta wave for outpatients and Omicron wave for inpatients. Outpatient trial participants and 73% of inpatients were unvaccinated. Symptom onset in outpatients was no more than five days before randomisation and prior or concomitant therapies including medications highly dependent on CYP3A4 were not allowed. We excluded two studies due to concerns with research integrity. We identified 13 ongoing studies. Three studies are currently awaiting classification. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating people with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 in outpatient settings Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC compared to SoC plus placebo may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.68; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence) and admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.27; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC may reduce serious adverse events during the study period compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC probably has little or no effect on treatment-emergent adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.10; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably increases treatment-related adverse events such as dysgeusia and diarrhoea during the study period compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.95; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC probably decreases discontinuation of study drug due to adverse events compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported improvement of clinical status, quality of life, or viral clearance. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating people with moderate to severe COVID-19 in inpatient settings We are uncertain whether nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC compared to SoC reduces all-cause mortality at 28 days (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.86; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or increases viral clearance at seven days (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.58; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 14 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.20; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported improvement or worsening of clinical status and quality of life. We did not include data for safety outcomes due to insufficient and inconsistent information. Subgroup analyses for equity For outpatients, the outcome 'admission to hospital or death' was investigated for equity regarding age (less than 65 years versus 65 years or greater) and ethnicity. There were no subgroup differences for age or ethnicity. For inpatients, the outcome 'all-cause mortality' was investigated for equity regarding age (65 years or less versus greater than 65 years). There was no difference between subgroups of age. No further equity-related subgroups were reported, and no subgroups were reported for other outcomes. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (PrEP and PEP) No studies available.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low-certainty evidence suggests nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces the risk of all-cause mortality and hospital admission or death in high-risk, unvaccinated COVID-19 outpatients infected with the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2. There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence of the safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Very low-certainty evidence exists regarding the effects of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir on all-cause mortality and viral clearance in mildly to moderately affected, mostly unvaccinated COVID-19 inpatients infected with the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. Insufficient and inconsistent information prevents the assessment of safety outcomes. No reliable differences in effect size and direction were found regarding equity aspects. There is no available evidence supporting the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. We are continually updating our search and making search results available on the OSF platform.
Topics: Humans; Aged; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Ritonavir; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 38032024
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015395.pub3 -
Clinical Nutrition ESPEN Jun 2024Among the side effects of chemotherapy, there is dysgeusia, which is an alteration or damage to the taste perception that negatively impacts the biopsychosocial sphere...
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE
Among the side effects of chemotherapy, there is dysgeusia, which is an alteration or damage to the taste perception that negatively impacts the biopsychosocial sphere of the patient. Therefore, it is important to recognize and manage it appropriately. The objective of this study is to identify clinical pharmacological strategies to reduce dysgeusia in chemotherapy patients.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines between February and May 2023, utilizing PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and the British Nursing Database. Methodological quality and bias risk assessment were performed using the JBI framework, while evidence certainty was evaluated using the Oxford OCEBM methodology.
RESULTS
Out of 1225 consulted records, 12 articles were included. The results underscore the efficacy of diverse pharmacological interventions in mitigating dysgeusia among chemotherapy patients. These include zinc supplementation with a daily dosage ranging between 50 and 220 mg (p ≤ 0.005), lactoferrin at 250 mg thrice daily (p < 0.001), delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol at 2 mg per day (p < 0.05), and cannabidiol at 150 mg per day (p = 0.04). All studies analysed showed a low risk of bias. The zinc and Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinoid treatment proved particularly promising, compared to the other treatments considered, where sample sizes were smaller and the placebo effect was not always clear.
CONCLUSION
Among the various pharmacological strategies identified, those that appear most promising concern the integration of zinc and Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinoid. Future studies should further explore the treatments identified in this review to expand the evidence base in this relatively underexplored field.
PubMed: 38900642
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnesp.2024.05.026 -
Cancer Treatment and Research... 2024The management of periocular basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is challenging due to its proximity to the eyeball. Vismodegib, a Hedgehog pathway inhibitor, has emerged as a... (Review)
Review
The management of periocular basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is challenging due to its proximity to the eyeball. Vismodegib, a Hedgehog pathway inhibitor, has emerged as a therapeutic option for locally advanced and metastatic BCC. To critically appraise the relevant evidence, we conducted a systematic review of observational and experimental studies assessing the efficacy and safety of vismodegib for periocular BCC. Thirty-seven trials, including 435 patients, were eligible. No randomized trials were retrieved. Complete and overall clinical response rates were 20-88 % and 68-100 %, respectively. Disease progression was observed at a maximum rate of 14 %. Recurrence rates varied between 0 % and 31 %. The most common side effects were muscle cramps, dysgeusia, weight loss and alopecia. Treatment with vismodegib improved health-related quality of life. In conclusion, vismodegib represents an important novel treatment for advanced periocular BCC, with good response rates and acceptable tolerability profile. Nevertheless, its full potential needs clarification through randomized controlled trials.
Topics: Humans; Anilides; Antineoplastic Agents; Carcinoma, Basal Cell; Pyridines; Quality of Life; Skin Neoplasms
PubMed: 38367414
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctarc.2024.100796 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2021Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) combined with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-targeted therapy and sunitinib monotherapy have been...
BACKGROUND
Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) combined with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-targeted therapy and sunitinib monotherapy have been widely applied to metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), effectiveness and safety data are still lacking. To optimize clinical decision-making, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized clinical trials to characterize the efficacy and the risk of adverse events (AEs) in patients treated with ICIs plus anti-VEGF therapy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We used PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before March 27, 2021. The efficacy outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR). The pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of AEs were calculated in the safety analysis.
RESULTS
Six RCTs involving 4,227 patients were identified after a systematic search. For OS, ICI and anti-VEGF combination therapy decreased mortality approximately 30% in the intention-to-treat population (ITT) (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.57-0.87), but there was no statistical difference in patients evaluated as "favorable" by the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria compared with monotherapy (HR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.55-1.46, = 0.66). In terms of PFS, the progression risk for all participants declined 35% (HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.50-0.83) and patients evaluated as "poor" by IMDC benefited further (HR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.36-0.58). No evident divergence was found in age and sex subgroups. The RRs of all-grade hypertension, arthralgia, rash, proteinuria, high-grade (grades 3-5) arthralgia, and proteinuria developed after combination therapy were increased compared with sunitinib. The risk of high-grade hypertension and rash showed no statistical difference. However, the risk of hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR), stomatitis, and dysgeusia decreased in combination therapy groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared with sunitinib, OS, PFS, and ORR were significantly improved in patients receiving ICI and anti-VEGF combination therapy at the expense of increased specific AEs. More attention should be paid to individualized application of these combination therapies to achieve the best benefit-risk ratio in the clinic.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
[https://inplasy.com/] INPLASY: 202130104.
PubMed: 34722290
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.739263 -
International Journal of Molecular... Jan 2023Taste and smell disorders (TSDs) are common side effects in patients undergoing cancer treatments. Knowing which treatments specifically cause them is crucial to improve... (Review)
Review
Taste and smell disorders (TSDs) are common side effects in patients undergoing cancer treatments. Knowing which treatments specifically cause them is crucial to improve patients' quality of life. This review looked at the oncological treatments that cause taste and smell alterations and their time of onset. We performed an integrative rapid review. The PubMed, PROSPERO, and Web of Science databases were searched in November 2022. The article screening and study selection were conducted independently by two reviewers. Data were analyzed narratively. Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were included. A high heterogeneity was detected. Taste disorders ranged between 17 and 86%, while dysosmia ranged between 8 and 45%. Docetaxel, paclitaxel, nab-paclitaxel, capecitabine, cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, anthracyclines, and oral 5-FU analogues were found to be the drugs most frequently associated with TSDs. This review identifies the cancer treatments that mainly lead to taste and smell changes and provides evidence for wider studies, including those focusing on prevention. Further studies are warranted to make conclusive indication possible.
Topics: Humans; Neoplasms; Olfaction Disorders; Quality of Life; Smell; Taste; Taste Disorders
PubMed: 36768861
DOI: 10.3390/ijms24032538 -
European Archives of... Apr 2021This meta-analysis is aimed to review and analyze all available data of intraoperative and postoperative results of endoscopic and microscopic stapes surgery. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This meta-analysis is aimed to review and analyze all available data of intraoperative and postoperative results of endoscopic and microscopic stapes surgery.
METHODS
According to the PRISMA statements checklist, this systematic review and meta-analysis were designed. Data were extracted from public databases, such as PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and more. The quality of studies was evaluated using the MINORS scale. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were estimated for binary outcome data, while the mean differences and 95% CIs were estimated for continuous data. I and χ tests were used to quantify statistical heterogeneity. If more than ten studies were included in each analysis, funnel plot would be performed to analysis publication bias.
RESULTS
Twelve studies with 620 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Primary outcomes collected in this meta-analysis included average postoperative auditory gain (APAG), postoperative air-bone gap (ABG), the rate of chorda tympani handling and bone curettage, which all showed a statistically significant difference in favor of endoscopy. While only secondary outcomes about postoperative pain and dysgeusia demonstrated a significantly reduced incidence. Furthermore, there was not any statistically significant difference on postoperative dizziness and average operative time between endoscopy and microscopy.
CONCLUSION
Although there is a need for high-quality pooled data in the future, a consistently superior effect of the endoscopic group was still shown in terms of total effectiveness, when compared to the microscopic group. We have reasons to support the application of endoscopy in stapes surgery. The future of ESS, we believe, is blazing bright.
Topics: Endoscopy; Humans; Microscopy; Operative Time; Otosclerosis; Reference Standards; Retrospective Studies; Stapes; Stapes Surgery; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32648030
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-020-06132-2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2015Idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) has an estimated incidence of one to three people per 100,000 people per year, and occurs most commonly in obese, young women.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) has an estimated incidence of one to three people per 100,000 people per year, and occurs most commonly in obese, young women. IIH is associated with severe morbidity, notably due to a significant threat to sight and severe headache. Several different management options have been proposed. Conservative measures centre on weight loss. Pharmacological therapy includes use of diuretics. Refractory and sight-threatening cases demand surgical intervention, most often in the form of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) diversion or optic nerve sheath fenestration. Other treatments include venous sinus stenting and bariatric surgery.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of any intervention for IIH in any patient group.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2015 Issue 6), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to July 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to July 2015), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), 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 22 July 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which any intervention was compared to placebo, or to another form of treatment, for people with a clinical diagnosis of IIH.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the search results for trials to be included in the review. We resolved any discrepancies by third party decision.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified two completed RCTs (enrolling a total of 211 participants and conducted in the UK and US) and two ongoing trials that met the inclusion criteria. Both completed trials compared acetazolamide to placebo, in conjunction with a weight loss intervention in both groups. Attrition bias was a problem in both trials with high loss to follow-up, in one study this loss to follow-up occurred particularly in the acetazolamide arm. One trial was unmasked and we judged it to be at risk of performance and detection bias.In these studies, change in visual acuity was similar in the treatment and control groups as measured by logMAR acuity. In one study people in the acetalomazide group had a similar change in logMAR acuity compared to the placebo group between baseline and 12 months in the right eye (MD 0.04 logMAR, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.16) and left eye (MD 0.03 logMAR, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.15). In the other study people in the acetalomazide group had a similar change in vision over six months compared with people in the placebo group (mean difference in change in letters read was 0.01 (95% CI -1.45 to 1.46). One study reported no cases of visual loss in 21 people treated with acetalomazide compared to 2/20 cases in the placebo group (odds ratio 0.17, 95% CI 0.01, 3.82).The prespecified outcome for this review was reduction in CSF pressure to normal levels which was not reported by the two trials. One trial reported that, in a subsample of 85 participants who agreed to lumbar puncture at 6 months, people in the acetalomazide group on average had a greater reduction in CSF pressure (MD -59.9 mmH(2)O, 95% CI -96.4, -23.4).In one study, people in the acetalozamide group on average experienced a greater reduction in papilloedema as assessed by fundus photographs MD -0.70 (95% CI -1.00 to -0.40) and by clinical grading MD -0.91 (95% CI -1.27 to -0.54) between baseline and six months in the study eye.Headache was recorded as present/absent in one study at 12 months (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.12,1.41, 41 participants). Both studies reported headache on visual analogue scales (different ones) but results were inconclusive (MD for change in headache score measured on 10-point visual analogue scale at 12 months was 1.0 (-1.80, 3.70, 41 participants) and MD for change in headache score on a 6 point scale measured at 6 months was -0.45 (-3.5,2.6, number of participants unclear).In one study, a similar proportion of people in the acetalomazide group were in remission (however, the trial authors did not state their definition of this term) at 12 months compared to the placebo group. However, the 95% CIs were wide and there is considerable uncertainty as to the effect (OR 1.13 (95% CI 0.32 to 3.90, 41 participants).In one study of 185 participants, people in the acetalomazide group had an increased risk of decreased CO2, diarrhoea, dysgeusia, fatigue, nausea, paresthesia, tinnitus and vomiting compared to people in the placebo group. In general, the estimates of effect were uncertain with wide 95% CIs. Adverse effects were not reported in the other study.One study reported that quality of life was better in acetazolamide-treated patients based on the visual quality of life (VFQ-25) (MD 6.35, 95% CI 2.22 to 10.47) and the physical (MD 3.02, 95% CI 0.34 to 5.70) and mental (MD 3.45, 95% CI 0.35 to 6.55) components of the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey tool at six months. Costs were not reported in either study.We judged the evidence to be low certainty (GRADE) downgrading for imprecision and risk of bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Although the two included RCTs showed modest benefits for acetazolamide for some outcomes, there is insufficient evidence to recommend or reject the efficacy of this intervention, or any other treatments currently available, for treating people with IIH. Further high-quality RCTs are required in order to adequately assess the effect of acetazolamide therapy in people with IIH.
Topics: Acetazolamide; Adult; Antihypertensive Agents; Cerebrospinal Fluid Pressure; Female; Headache; Humans; Intracranial Hypertension; Male; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Visual Acuity; Weight Loss
PubMed: 26250102
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003434.pub3 -
JAMA Network Open Apr 2022Neurologic adverse events (NAEs) due to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can be fatal but are underexplored. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Neurologic adverse events (NAEs) due to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can be fatal but are underexplored.
OBJECTIVE
To compare NAEs reported in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of US Food and Drug Administration-approved ICIs with other forms of chemotherapy and placebo.
DATA SOURCES
Bibliographic databases (Embase, Ovid, MEDLINE, and Scopus data) and trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov) were searched from inception through March 1, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Phase II/III RCTs evaluating the use of ICIs were eligible for inclusion. Unpublished trials were excluded from the analysis.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two investigators independently performed screening of trials using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline. NAEs were recorded for each arm. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The risk of NAEs with ICI use compared with any drug regimen, cytotoxic chemotherapy, and placebo.
RESULTS
A total 39 trials including 23 705 patients were analyzed (16 135 [68.0%] men, 7866 [33.1%] White). The overall risk of a NAE was lower in the ICI group (risk ratio [RR], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45-0.77) and in the subgroup of RCTs comparing ICI use with chemotherapy (RR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.13-0.39). In the subgroup of RCTs comparing ICI with placebo, the overall risk of NAE was significantly higher in the ICI group (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.30-1.89). Peripheral neuropathy (RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.51) and dysgeusia (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.27-0.63) were significantly lower in the ICI group. Headache was more common with the use of ICIs (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.10-1.59). In the subgroup analysis of RCTs comparing ICI use with chemotherapy, peripheral neuropathy (RR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.05-0.17), dysgeusia (RR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.21-0.85), and paresthesia (RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.13-0.67) were significantly lower in the ICI group. RCTs comparing ICIs with placebo showed a higher risk of headache with ICI use (RR, 1.63; 95%, CI, 1.32-2.02).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Results of this meta-analysis suggest that the overall risk of NAEs, peripheral neuropathy, and dysgeusia is lower with the use of ICI. When compared with chemotherapy, the overall risk of NAE, peripheral neuropathy, paresthesia, and dysgeusia was lower with ICI use; however, when compared with placebo, the risk of NAEs is higher with the use of ICI.
Topics: Dysgeusia; Female; Headache; Humans; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Male; Paresthesia; United States
PubMed: 35438755
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.7722