-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2013This is an updated version of a previously published review in The Cochrane Library (2005, Issue 2) on 'Megestrol acetate for the treatment of anorexia-cachexia... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of a previously published review in The Cochrane Library (2005, Issue 2) on 'Megestrol acetate for the treatment of anorexia-cachexia syndrome'. Megestrol acetate (MA) is currently used to improve appetite and to increase weight in cancer-associated anorexia. In 1993, MA was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of anorexia, cachexia or unexplained weight loss in patients with AIDS. The mechanism by which MA increases appetite is unknown and its effectiveness for anorexia and cachexia in neoplastic and AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) patients is under investigation.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of MA in palliating anorexia-cachexia syndrome in patients with cancer, AIDS and other underlying pathologies.
SEARCH METHODS
We sought studies through an extensive search of electronic databases, journals, reference lists, contact with investigators and other search strategies outlined in the methods. The most recent search for this update was carried out in May 2012.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies were included in the review if they assessed MA compared to placebo or other drug treatments in randomised controlled trials of patients with a clinical diagnosis of anorexia-cachexia syndrome related to cancer, AIDS or any other underlying pathology.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two independent review authors conducted data extraction and evaluated methodological quality. We performed quantitative analyses using appetite and quality of life as a dichotomous variable, and analysed weight gain as continuous and dichotomous variables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 35 trials in this update, the same number but not the same trials as in the previous version of the review. The trials comprised 3963 patients for effectiveness and 3180 for safety. Sixteen trials compared MA at different doses with placebo, seven trials compared different doses of MA with other drug treatments and 10 trials compared different doses of MA. Meta-analysis showed a benefit of MA compared with placebo, particularly with regard to appetite improvement and weight gain in cancer, AIDS and other underlying conditions, and lack of benefit in the same patients when MA was compared to other drugs. There was insufficient information to define the optimal dose of MA, but higher doses were more related to weight improvement than lower doses. Quality of life improvement in patients was seen only when comparing MA versus placebo but not other drugs in both subcategories: cancer and AIDS. Oedema, thromboembolic phenomena and deaths were more frequent in the patients treated with MA. More than 40 side effects were studied.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review shows that MA improves appetite and is associated with slight weight gain in cancer, AIDS and in patients with other underlying pathology. Despite the fact that these patients are receiving palliative care they should be informed of the risks involved in taking MA.
Topics: Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome; Anorexia; Appetite Stimulants; Cachexia; Humans; Megestrol Acetate; Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Syndrome
PubMed: 23543530
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004310.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2017Endometrial cancer is one of the most common gynaecological cancers in the world. Rates of endometrial cancer are rising, in part because of rising obesity rates.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Endometrial cancer is one of the most common gynaecological cancers in the world. Rates of endometrial cancer are rising, in part because of rising obesity rates. Endometrial hyperplasia is a precancerous condition in women that can lead to endometrial cancer if left untreated. Endometrial hyperplasia occurs more commonly than endometrial cancer. Progesterone tablets currently used to treat women with endometrial hyperplasia are associated with adverse effects in up to 84% of women. The levonorgestrel intrauterine device (Mirena Coil, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Whippany, NJ, USA) may improve compliance, but it is invasive, is not acceptable to all women, and is associated with irregular vaginal bleeding in 82% of cases. Therefore, an alternative treatment for women with endometrial hyperplasia is needed. Metformin, a drug that is often used to treat people with diabetes, has been shown in some human studies to reverse endometrial hyperplasia. However, the effectiveness and safety of metformin for treatment of endometrial hyperplasia remain uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of metformin in treating women with endometrial hyperplasia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PubMed, Google Scholar, OpenGrey, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), and two trials registers from inception to 10 January 2017. We searched the bibliographies of all included studies and reviews on this topic. We also handsearched the conference abstracts of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) 2015 and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over trials comparing metformin (used alone or in combination with other medical therapies) versus placebo or no treatment, any conventional medical treatment, or any other active intervention for women with histologically confirmed endometrial hyperplasia of any type.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data from included studies, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We resolved disagreements by discussion or by deferment to a third review author. When study details were missing, review authors contacted study authors. The primary outcome of this review was regression of endometrial hyperplasia histology (with or without atypia) towards normal histology. Secondary outcome measures included recurrence of endometrial hyperplasia, progression of endometrial hyperplasia to endometrial cancer, hysterectomy rate, abnormal uterine bleeding, health-related quality of life, and adverse effects during treatment.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three RCTs in which a total of 77 women took part. We rated the quality of the evidence as very low for all outcomes owing to very serious risk of bias (associated with poor reporting, attrition, and limitations in study design) and imprecision.We performed a meta-analysis of two trials with 59 participants. When metformin was compared with megestrol acetate in women with endometrial hyperplasia, we found insufficient evidence to determine whether there were differences between groups for the following outcomes: regression of endometrial hyperplasia histology towards normal histology (odds ratio (OR) 3.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 11.57, two RCTs, n = 59, very low-quality evidence), hysterectomy rates (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.05 to 15.52, two RCTs, n = 59, very low-quality evidence), and rates of abnormal uterine bleeding (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.05 to 15.52, two RCTs, n = 44 , very low-quality evidence). We found no data for recurrence of endometrial hyperplasia or health-related quality of life. Both studies (n = 59) provided data on progression of endometrial hyperplasia to endometrial cancer as well as one (n = 16) reporting some adverse effects in the metformin arm, notably nausea, thrombosis, lactic acidosis, abnormal liver and renal function among others.Another trial including 16 participants compared metformin plus megestrol acetate versus megestrol acetate alone in women with endometrial hyperplasia. We found insufficient evidence to determine whether there were differences between groups for the following outcomes: regression of endometrial hyperplasia histology towards normal histology (OR 9.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 86.52, one RCT, n = 16, very low-quality evidence), recurrence of endometrial hyperplasia among women who achieve regression (OR not estimable, no events recorded, one RCT, n = 8, very low-quality evidence), progression of endometrial hyperplasia to endometrial cancer (OR not estimable, no events recorded, one RCT, n = 13, very low-quality evidence), or hysterectomy rates (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.37, one RCT, n = 16, very low-quality evidence). Investigators provided no data on abnormal uterine bleeding or health-related quality of life. In terms of adverse effects, three of eight participants (37.5%) in the metformin plus megestrol acetate study arm reported nausea.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
At present, evidence is insufficient to support or refute the use of metformin alone or in combination with standard therapy - specifically, megestrol acetate - versus megestrol acetate alone, for treatment of endometrial hyperplasia. Robustly designed and adequately powered randomised controlled trials yielding long-term outcome data are needed to address this clinical question.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Disease Progression; Endometrial Hyperplasia; Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Megestrol Acetate; Metformin; Middle Aged; Precancerous Conditions; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Uterine Hemorrhage; Uterine Neoplasms
PubMed: 29077194
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012214.pub2 -
Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and... Apr 2018We provide a systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of cannabinoids in palliative medicine. The Cochrane Central Register of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
We provide a systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of cannabinoids in palliative medicine. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and http://clinicaltrials.gov, and a selection of cancer journals were searched up until 15th of March 2017. Of the 108 screened studies, nine studies with a total of 1561 participants were included. Overall, the nine studies were at moderate risk of bias. The quality of evidence comparing cannabinoids with placebo was rated according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation as low or very low because of indirectness, imprecision, and potential reporting bias. In cancer patients, there were no significant differences between cannabinoids and placebo for improving caloric intake (standardized mean differences [SMD]: 0.2 95% confidence interval [CI]: [-0.66, 1.06] P = 0.65), appetite (SMD: 0.81 95% CI: [-1.14, 2.75]; P = 0.42), nausea/vomiting (SMD: 0.21 [-0.10, 0.52] P = 0.19), >30% decrease in pain (risk differences [RD]: 0.07 95% CI: [-0.01, 0.16]; P = 0.07), or sleep problems (SMD: -0.09 95% CI: [-0.62, 0.43] P = 0.72). In human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) patients, cannabinoids were superior to placebo for weight gain (SMD: 0.57 [0.22; 0.92]; P = 0.001) and appetite (SMD: 0.57 [0.11; 1.03]; P = 0.02) but not for nausea/vomiting (SMD: 0.20 [-0.15, 0.54]; P = 0.26). Regarding side effects in cancer patients, there were no differences between cannabinoids and placebo in symptoms of dizziness (RD: 0.03 [-0.02; 0.08]; P = 0.23) or poor mental health (RD: -0.01 [-0.04; 0.03]; P = 0.69), whereas in HIV patients, there was a significant increase in mental health symptoms (RD: 0.05 [0.00; 0.11]; P = 0.05). Tolerability (measured by the number of withdrawals because of adverse events) did not differ significantly in cancer (RD: 1.15 [0.80; 1.66]; P = 0.46) and HIV patients (RD: 1.87 [0.60; 5.84]; P = 0.28). Safety did not differ in cancer (RD: 1.12 [0.86; 1.46]; P = 0.39) or HIV patients (4.51 [0.54; 37.45]; P = 0.32) although there was large uncertainty about the latter reflected in the width of the CI. In one moderate quality study of 469 cancer patients with cancer-associated anorexia, megestrol was superior to cannabinoids in improving appetite, producing >10% weight gain and tolerability. In another study comparing megestrol to dronabinol in HIV patients, megestrol treatment led to higher weight gain without any differences in tolerability and safety. We found no convincing, unbiased, high quality evidence suggesting that cannabinoids are of value for anorexia or cachexia in cancer or HIV patients.
Topics: Cannabinoids; Humans; Palliative Medicine
PubMed: 29400010
DOI: 10.1002/jcsm.12273 -
Contemporary Oncology (Poznan, Poland) 2018Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer death worldwide. There is as yet no standard therapy for inoperable HCC. We aimed to systematically... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer death worldwide. There is as yet no standard therapy for inoperable HCC. We aimed to systematically review all health-related evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of megestrol in HCC patients.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
We conducted a systematic computerised search in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL. All original human studies reporting the efficacy of megestrol in HCC patients were included in our review.
RESULTS
Six studies including 357 patients were finally eligible. The overall mean survival time of 87 megestrol-treated patients, was 9.187 (95% CI 1.134-17.239) months. Eight patients had tumour size enlargement, and eight patients had tumour size reduction. From three studies including 76 patients, 42 patients reported having improvement of appetite and food intake after receiving megestrol. Diverse adverse events were noticed between studies; however, they were tolerable in most of the studies.
CONCLUSIONS
To summarise, no conclusive evidence should be declared regarding the effectiveness of megestrol in patients with inoperable HCC. However, previous studies have shown promising results at the level of prolonging the survival rate, tumour size reduction, and improving the quality of life. Therefore, we recommend that future research studies must examine the role of megestrol in large-population, randomised studies.
PubMed: 30783383
DOI: 10.5114/wo.2018.82641 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jun 2022Cancer-related anorexia/cachexia is known to be associated with worsened quality of life and survival; however, limited treatment options exist. Although megestrol... (Review)
Review
Cancer-related anorexia/cachexia is known to be associated with worsened quality of life and survival; however, limited treatment options exist. Although megestrol acetate (MA) is often used off-label to stimulate appetite and improve anorexia/cachexia in patients with advanced cancers, the benefits are controversial. The present meta-analysis aimed to better elucidate the clinical benefits of MA in patients with cancer-related anorexia/cachexia. A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, OVID Medline, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Google Scholar databases found 23 clinical trials examining the use of MA in cancer-related anorexia. The available randomized, controlled trials were appraised using Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2) and they had moderate-to-high risk of bias. A total of eight studies provided sufficient data on weight change for meta-analysis. The studies were divided into high-dose treatment (>320 mg/day) and low-dose treatment (≤320 mg/day). The overall pooled mean change in weight among cancer patients treated with MA, regardless of dosage was 0.75 kg (95% CI = −1.64 to 3.15, τ2 = 9.35, I2 = 96%). Patients who received high-dose MA tended to have weight loss rather than weight gain. There were insufficient studies to perform a meta-analysis for the change in tricep skinfold, midarm circumference, or quality of life measures. MA was generally well-tolerated, except for a clear thromboembolic risk, especially with higher doses. On balance, MA did not appear to be effective in providing the symptomatic improvement of anorexia/cachexia in patients with advanced cancer.
PubMed: 35807039
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11133756 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Chronic loss of appetite in cystic fibrosis concerns both individuals and families. Appetite stimulants have been used to help cystic fibrosis patients with chronic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic loss of appetite in cystic fibrosis concerns both individuals and families. Appetite stimulants have been used to help cystic fibrosis patients with chronic anorexia attain optimal body mass index (BMI) and nutritional status. However, these may have adverse effects on clinical status. This is an updated version of the original review.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically search for and evaluate the evidence on the beneficial effects of appetite stimulants in the management of cystic fibrosis-related anorexia and synthesise reports of any side effects.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register and online trials registries; handsearched reference lists; and contacted local and international experts to identify relevant trials. Last search of the Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register: 23 May 2022. Last search of online trial registries: 10 May 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of appetite stimulants compared to placebo, control, no treatment or different appetite stimulants, or to the same appetite stimulants at different doses or regimens for at least one month in adults and children with cystic fibrosis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the included trials. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and performed meta-analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four trials (70 participants) comparing appetite stimulants (cyproheptadine hydrochloride and megestrol acetate) to placebo; the numbers of adults or children within each trial were not always reported. We assessed the certainty of evidence as low due to the small number of participants, incomplete or selective outcome reporting, and unclear risk of selection bias. Regarding our primary outcomes, a meta-analysis of two trials (42 participants) showed that appetite stimulants may produce a larger increase in weight (kg) at three months (mean difference (MD) 1.25 kg, 95% confidence interval (Cl) 0.45 to 2.05), and one trial (17 participants) showed a similar result at six months (MD 3.80 kg, 95% CI 1.27 to 6.33) (both low-certainty evidence). Results also showed that weight z score may increase with appetite stimulants compared to placebo at three months (MD 0.61, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.93; 3 studies; 40 participants; P < 0.001) and at six months (MD 0.74, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.22; 1 trial; 17 participants). There was no evidence of a difference in effect between cyproheptadine hydrochloride and megestrol acetate for either outcome. Only one trial (25 participants) reported analysable data for body composition (BMI), with results favouring cyproheptadine hydrochloride compared to placebo; a further trial (16 participants) narratively agreed with this result. All four trials reported on lung function at durations ranging from two to nine months. Considering analysable data, two trials (42 participants) found that appetite stimulants may make little or no difference in forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV) % predicted at three months, and one trial (17 participants) found similar results at six months. Two further three-month trials narratively agreed with these results. Limited information was reported for secondary outcomes. Two trials (23 participants) reported results showing that appetite stimulants may increase appetite compared to placebo at three months (odds ratio 45.25, 95% CI 3.57 to 573.33; low-certainty evidence). Only one study reported on quality of life, finding that cyproheptadine reduced fatigue in two participants compared with none with placebo. One study (25 participants) found no difference in energy intake between appetite stimulant or placebo at three months. Insufficient reporting of adverse effects prevented a full determination of their impact. Two studies (33 participants) narratively reported similar requirements for additional antibiotics between appetite stimulants and placebo at three months. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At six months in adults and children, appetite stimulants improved only two of the outcomes of this review: weight (or weight z score) and subjectively reported appetite. Insufficient reporting of side effects prevented a full determination of their impact. Whilst the data may suggest the potential use of appetite stimulants in treating anorexia in adults and children with cystic fibrosis, this is based upon low-certainty evidence from a small number of trials, therefore firm conclusions cannot be drawn. Clinicians need to be aware of the potential adverse effects of appetite stimulants and actively monitor any individuals prescribed these medications accordingly. Research is required to determine meaningful surrogate measures for appetite and to define what constitutes quality weight gain. Future trials of appetite stimulants should use a validated measure of symptoms including a disease-specific instrument for measuring poor appetite. This review highlights the need for multicentred, adequately powered, and well-designed trials to evaluate agents to safely increase appetite in people with cystic fibrosis and to establish the optimal mode of treatment.
Topics: Adult; Anorexia; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Appetite Stimulants; Child; Cyproheptadine; Cystic Fibrosis; Humans; Megestrol Acetate; Quality of Life
PubMed: 36149378
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008190.pub3 -
BJOG : An International Journal of... Jan 2023Fifteen percent of patients with endometrial cancer (EC) have advanced stage disease or develop a recurrence. Progestins have been applied as systemic treatment for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Fifteen percent of patients with endometrial cancer (EC) have advanced stage disease or develop a recurrence. Progestins have been applied as systemic treatment for decades, but there is limited evidence on response prediction with biomarkers and toxicity.
OBJECTIVES
To review the response and toxicity of progestin therapy and stratify response to progesterone receptor (PR) expression and tumour grade.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We used the search terms 'Endometrial cancer', 'Progestins', 'Disease progression', 'Recurrence' and related terms in Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies on patients with advanced stage or recurrent EC treated with progestin monotherapy were included. Studies on adjuvant therapy, with fewer than ten cases and with sarcoma histology were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Evaluation for bias was performed with the Revised Cochrane RoB2 tool for randomised studies and the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised studies. A random effects meta-analysis was performed with the overall response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate and toxicity as primary outcome measures.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-six studies (1639 patients) were included. The ORR of progestin therapy was 30% (95% CI 25-36), the clinical benefit rate was 52% (95% CI 42-61). In PR-positive EC, the ORR was 55%, compared with 12% in PR-negative disease (risk difference 43%, 95% CI 15-71). Severe toxicity occurred in 6.5%.
CONCLUSIONS
Progestin therapy is a viable treatment option in patients with advanced stage and recurrent EC with low toxicity and high ORR in PR-positive disease. The role of PR expression in relation to progression-free survival and overall survival is unclear.
Topics: Female; Humans; Progestins; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Endometrial Neoplasms
PubMed: 36264251
DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.17331 -
Fertility and Sterility Mar 2014To evaluate the various possible prognostic factors on the fertility-sparing management of atypical hyperplasia and endometrial cancer; to generate survival curves to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Prognostic factors of oncologic and reproductive outcomes in fertility-sparing management of endometrial atypical hyperplasia and adenocarcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the various possible prognostic factors on the fertility-sparing management of atypical hyperplasia and endometrial cancer; to generate survival curves to estimate remission and recurrence rates according to time.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42013004557.
SETTING
University hospital.
PATIENT(S)
Patients who underwent fertility-sparing management for atypical hyperplasia and endometrial cancer.
INTERVENTION(S)
All published studies were identified through MEDLINE and reported according to PRISMA guidelines.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)
Remission, recurrence, progression, and pregnancy rates by age, obesity, infertility, previous pregnancy, histology, and medical treatment.
RESULT(S)
A total of 370 patients from 24 studies were included. The 12- and 24-month remission probabilities were 78.0% and 81.4%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, previous pregnancy (odds ratio [OR] 2.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23-5.89), infertility (OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.05-4.87), and treatment with megestrol acetate (OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.20-6.02) were associated with higher remission probability. The 12- and 24-month recurrence probabilities were 9.6% and 29.2%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, none of the factors studied was associated with higher recurrence probability. Twenty-two studies totaling 351 patients were used to assess pregnancy rate; 111 subjects (32%) had one pregnancy or more. In multivariate analysis, none of the factors were associated with pregnancy probability. Among the 263 patients used to assess progression rate, 39 (15%) had a tumor with at least myometrial invasion on the hysterectomy specimen. Endometrial cancer and the use of other medical therapies (in comparison with megestrol acetate) were associated with an increased probability of progression.
CONCLUSION(S)
Fertility-sparing management should not be contraindicated in older patients with previous infertility or obesity.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Endometrial Neoplasms; Female; Fertility Preservation; Humans; Hyperplasia; Pregnancy; Prognosis; Reproduction; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24388202
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.11.028 -
Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and... Oct 2023In cancer cachexia trials, measures of physical function are commonly used as endpoints. For drug trials to obtain regulatory approval, efficacy in physical function...
In cancer cachexia trials, measures of physical function are commonly used as endpoints. For drug trials to obtain regulatory approval, efficacy in physical function endpoints may be needed alongside other measures. However, it is not clear which physical function endpoints should be used. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the frequency and diversity of physical function endpoints in cancer cachexia trials. Following a comprehensive electronic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane (1990-2021), records were retrieved. Eligible trials met the following criteria: adults (≥18 years), controlled design, more than 40 participants, use of a cachexia intervention for more than 14 days and use of a physical function endpoint. Physical function measures were classified as an objective measure (hand grip strength [HGS], stair climb power [SCP], timed up and go [TUG] test, 6-min walking test [6MWT] and short physical performance battery [SPPB]), clinician assessment of function (Karnofsky Performance Status [KPS] or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-Performance Status [ECOG-PS]) or patient-reported outcomes (physical function subscale of the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires [EORTC QLQ-C30 or C15]). Data extraction was performed using Covidence and followed PRISMA guidance (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022276710). A total of 5975 potential studies were examined and 71 were eligible. Pharmacological interventions were assessed in 38 trials (54%). Of these, 11 (29%, n = 1184) examined megestrol and 5 (13%, n = 1928) examined anamorelin; nutritional interventions were assessed in 21 trials (30%); and exercise-based interventions were assessed in 6 trials (8%). The remaining six trials (8%) assessed multimodal interventions. Among the objective measures of physical function (assessed as primary or secondary endpoints), HGS was most commonly examined (33 trials, n = 5081) and demonstrated a statistically significant finding in 12 (36%) trials (n = 2091). The 6MWT was assessed in 12 trials (n = 1074) and was statistically significant in 4 (33%) trials (n = 403), whereas SCP, TUG and SPPB were each assessed in 3 trials. KPS was more commonly assessed than the newer ECOG-PS (16 vs. 9 trials), and patient-reported EORTC QLQ-C30 physical function was reported in 25 trials. HGS is the most commonly used physical function endpoint in cancer cachexia clinical trials. However, heterogeneity in study design, populations, intervention and endpoint selection make it difficult to comment on the optimal endpoint and how to measure this. We offer several recommendations/considerations to improve the design of future clinical trials in cancer cachexia.
Topics: Humans; Cachexia; Hand Strength; Neoplasms; Quality of Life; Research Design
PubMed: 37671529
DOI: 10.1002/jcsm.13321 -
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management Apr 2004This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of megestrol acetate (MA) in anorexia-cachexia syndrome (ACS). Literature and relevant databases were searched for... (Review)
Review
This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of megestrol acetate (MA) in anorexia-cachexia syndrome (ACS). Literature and relevant databases were searched for randomized controlled trials of MA to treat ACS in patients with cancer, AIDS, or other pathologies. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers, and meta-analyses were performed where possible. Twenty-six studies were included (n=3,887). Compared to placebo, MA increased appetite in oncology patients [RR=2.31 (95% CI 1.52-3.59)], led to weight gain [RR=1.88 (95% CI 1.43-2.47)] and improved HRQOL [RR=1.52 (95% CI 1.00-2.30)]. In AIDS patients, it increased weight [RR=2.16 (95% CI 1.45-3.21)]. MA showed significant benefits over dronabinol in improving appetite, but no statistically significant advantages over other drugs for treating ACS were observed. There were no appreciable differences between lower (<800 mg/day) and higher (>800 mg/day) doses of MA. Few serious adverse events were recorded. MA is an effective and safe treatment for ACS in cancer and AIDS patients, particularly in terms of improvement in appetite and weight gain.
Topics: Anorexia; Cachexia; Humans; Megestrol Acetate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Syndrome; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 15050664
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2003.09.007