-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2018Diabetic retinopathy is one of the major causes of blindness and the number of cases has risen in recent years. Herbal medicine has been used to treat diabetes and its... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Diabetic retinopathy is one of the major causes of blindness and the number of cases has risen in recent years. Herbal medicine has been used to treat diabetes and its complications including diabetic retinopathy for thousands of years around the world. However, common practice is not always evidence-based. Evidence is needed to help people with diabetic retinopathy or doctors to make judicious judgements about using herbal medicine as treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and harm of single herbal medicine for diabetic retinopathy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register, MEDLINE, Embase, OpenGrey, the ISRCTN registry, ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the search was 12 June 2018. We also searched the following Chinese databases in June 2013: Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (CBM), Traditional Chinese Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System (TCMLARS), Wanfang China Dissertation Database (CDDB), Wanfang China Conference Paper Database (CCPD) and the Index to Chinese Periodical Literature.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that investigated the effects of any single herb (or extracts from a single herb) as a treatment for people with diabetic retinopathy. We considered the following comparators: placebo, no treatment, non-herbal (conventional) medicine or surgical treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the studies. Our prespecified outcomes were: progression of diabetic retinopathy, visual acuity, microaneurysms and haemorrhages in the retina, blood glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (%) and adverse effects. We performed meta-analyses using risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 studies involving 754 participants, of which nine were conducted in China and one in Poland. In all studies, participants in both groups received conventional treatment for diabetic retinopathy which included maintaining blood glucose and lipids using medicines and keeping a stable diabetic diet. In three studies, the comparator group also received an additional potentially active comparator in the form of a vasoprotective drug. The single herbs or extracts included Ruscus extract tablet, Sanqi Tongshu capsule, tetramethylpyrazine injection, Xueshuantong injection, Puerarin injection and Xuesaitong injection. The Sanqi Tongshu capsule, Xueshuantong injection and Xuesaitong injection were all made from the extract of Radix Notoginseng (San qi) and the main ingredient was sanchinoside. The risk of bias was high in all included studies mainly due to lack of masking (blinding). None of the studies reported the primary outcome of this review, progression of retinopathy.Combined analysis of herbal interventions suggested that people who took these herbs in combination with conventional treatment may have been more likely to gain 2 or more lines of visual acuity compared to people who did not take these herbs when compared to conventional intervention alone at the end of treatment (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.48; 5 trials, 541 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analyses based on the different single herbs found no evidence for different effects of different herbs, but the power of this analysis was low. One study reported Sanqi Tongshu capsule might be associated with a greater reduction in microaneurysms and haemorrhages in the retina (very low-certainty evidence). The pooled analysis of two studies on tetramethylpyrazine or Xueshuantong injection showed such herbs may have had little effect on lowering HbA1c (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.58 to 0.58; 215 participants; low-certainty evidence).There was very low-certainty evidence on adverse events. Two studies reported minor adverse events such as uncomfortable stomach, urticaria, dizziness and headache. There was no report of observation on adverse events in the other studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
No conclusions could be drawn about the effect of any single herb or herbal extract on diabetic retinopathy from the current available evidence. It was difficult to exclude the placebo effect as a possible explanation for observed differences due to the lack of placebo control in the included studies. Further adequately designed trials are needed to establish the evidence.
Topics: China; Diabetic Retinopathy; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Ginsenosides; Humans; Isoflavones; Microaneurysm; Phytotherapy; Plants, Medicinal; Pyrazines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retinal Hemorrhage; Ruscus; Saponins; Vasodilator Agents; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 30566763
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007939.pub2 -
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Sep 2015Pyrazinamide (PZA) is an important first-line drug in the treatment of tuberculosis (TB) and of significant interest to the HIV-infected community due to the prevalence... (Review)
Review
Pyrazinamide (PZA) is an important first-line drug in the treatment of tuberculosis (TB) and of significant interest to the HIV-infected community due to the prevalence of TB-HIV coinfection in some regions of the world. The mechanism of resistance to PZA is unlike that of any other anti-TB drug. The gene pncA, encoding pyrazinamidase (PZase), is associated with resistance to PZA. However, because single mutations in PZase have a low prevalence, the individual sensitivities are low. Hundreds of distinct mutations in the enzyme have been associated with resistance, while some only appear in susceptible isolates. This makes interpretation of molecular testing difficult and often leads to the simplification that any PZase mutation causes resistance. This systematic review reports a comprehensive global list of mutations observed in PZase and its promoter region in clinical strains, their phenotypic association, their global frequencies and diversity, the method of phenotypic determination, their MIC values when given, and the method of MIC determination and assesses the strength of the association between mutations and phenotypic resistance to PZA. In this systematic review, we report global statistics for 641 mutations in 171 (of 187) codons from 2,760 resistant strains and 96 mutations from 3,329 susceptible strains reported in 61 studies. For diagnostics, individual mutations (or any subset) were not sufficiently sensitive. Assuming similar error profiles of the 5 phenotyping platforms included in this study, the entire enzyme and its promoter provide a combined estimated sensitivity of 83%. This review highlights the need for identification of an alternative mechanism(s) of resistance, at least for the unexplained 17% of cases.
Topics: Amidohydrolases; Antitubercular Agents; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Mutation; Mycobacterium tuberculosis; Pyrazinamide
PubMed: 26077261
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00204-15 -
BMJ Open Oct 2017To assess the effectiveness of sitagliptin compared to sulfonylureas as add-on to metformin in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus from both randomised controlled... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effectiveness of sitagliptin compared to sulfonylureas as add-on to metformin in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus from both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 'real-world' non-randomised studies.
METHODS AND ANALYSES
We conducted a systematic review of EMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL and grey literature for RCTs and non-randomised studies. We reported outcomes relating to change in HbA1c, fasting glucose, weight, blood pressure and lipids from baseline and need for treatment change. No study investigating macrovascular and microvascular diabetes complications was found. Meta-analysis was used where studies were sufficiently homogenous.
RESULTS
Seven RCTs and five non-randomised studies were eligible for inclusion from 1335 articles retrieved. Meta-analysis of three homogenous RCTs revealed a statistically significant decrease in weight with sitagliptin when compared to sulfonylureas (weighted mean difference (WMD) -2.05 kg; 95% CI -2.38 to -1.71); however, a similar change from baseline in HbA1c (WMD 0.05; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.12), fasting glucose (WMD 0.11; 95% CI -0.08 to -0.29), blood pressure, lipids and the proportion achieving HbA1c <7% by study end (OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.13) was observed.Non-randomised studies identified consisted of four prospective and one retrospective cohort study. Three of these five studies were of moderate/high quality, and results though less precise suggested similar real-world comparative glycaemic and weight effectiveness for both treatments. Data from two cohort studies suggested that treatment change (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.57 to 0.73) and insulin initiation (HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.65 to 0.90) were less likely among those prescribed sitagliptin; however, inadequate reporting of HbA1c at time of treatment change made interpreting results challenging.
CONCLUSION
Sitagliptin users experienced modest weight loss compared to gain with sulfonylureas; however, this difference was around 2 kg, which may not be of major clinical significance for most individuals. Similar change was observed across most other effectiveness outcomes reported. Further studies are needed to address longer-term effectiveness outcomes for sitagliptin compared to sulfonylureas as add-on to metformin.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42016033983.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Blood Glucose; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors; Female; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Insulin; Male; Metformin; Middle Aged; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Sitagliptin Phosphate; Sulfonylurea Compounds; Weight Loss; Young Adult
PubMed: 29084794
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017260 -
American Journal of Hematology Jan 2011Thalidomide (T) or bortezomib (B) in combination with melphalan plus prednisone (MP) is superior to MP as first line therapy for previously untreated myeloma. However,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Thalidomide (T) or bortezomib (B) in combination with melphalan plus prednisone (MP) is superior to MP as first line therapy for previously untreated myeloma. However, direct head-to-head comparison of Melphalan, Prednisone plus Bortezomib (MPB) versus Melphalan, Prednisone plus Thalidomide (MPT) is lacking. We performed an indirect meta-analysis to assess the treatment effects of MPB versus MPT via common comparator MP using the systematic review and meta-analytical techniques. A comprehensive literature search (MEDLINE and gray literature) was undertaken. Systematic review was performed as per the Cochrane Collaboration recommendations. Initial search yielded 1,013 citations, of which six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling 2,798 patients met the inclusion criteria. Comparison of MPT versus MP (five RCTs) showed no survival difference [hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64-1.05] but a statistically significant difference in event-free survival favoring MPT (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.56-0.77) without excessive treatment-related mortality [risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% CI 0.64-1.92]. Comparison of MPB vs. MP (one RCT) showed a statistically significant benefit for survival (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51-0.84) and event-free survival (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.37-0.63) without difference in treatment-related mortality (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.11-1.63) with MPB. The indirect comparison of MPB versus MPT showed no difference between MPB versus MPT for all outcomes but a significant benefit for complete response (RR 2.34, 95% CI 1.12-4.90), and grade III/IV adverse events (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38-0.73) favoring MPB. There is an uncertainty about definitive superiority of one type of regimen over the other. Therefore, direct head-to-head comparison between these competing regimens is warranted.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Boronic Acids; Bortezomib; Disease-Free Survival; Female; Humans; Male; Melphalan; Multiple Myeloma; Prednisone; Pyrazines; Thalidomide
PubMed: 21120867
DOI: 10.1002/ajh.21904 -
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association... Jul 2020Antiviral medications are being given empirically to some patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To support the development of a COVID-19 management... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Antiviral medications are being given empirically to some patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To support the development of a COVID-19 management guideline, we conducted a systematic review that addressed the benefits and harms of 7 antiviral treatments for COVID-19.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed and 3 Chinese databases (CNKI, WANFANG and SinoMed) through Apr. 19, medRxiv and Chinaxiv through Apr. 27, and Chongqing VIP through Apr. 30, 2020. We included studies of ribavirin, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, umifenovir (arbidol), favipravir, interferon and lopinavir/ritonavir. If direct evidence from COVID-19 studies was not available, we included indirect evidence from studies of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) for efficacy outcomes and other acute respiratory viral infections for safety outcomes.
RESULTS
In patients with nonsevere COVID-19 illness, the death rate was extremely low, precluding an important effect on mortality. We found only very low-quality evidence with little or no suggestion of benefit for most treatments and outcomes in both nonsevere and severe COVID-19. An exception was treatment with lopinavir/ritonavir, for which we found low-quality evidence for a decrease in length of stay in the intensive care unit (risk difference 5 d shorter, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0 to 9 d) and hospital stay (risk difference 1 d shorter, 95% CI 0 to 2 d). For safety outcomes, evidence was of low or very low quality, with the exception of treatment with lopinavir/ritonavir for which moderate-quality evidence suggested likely increases in diarrhea, nausea and vomiting.
INTERPRETATION
To date, persuasive evidence of important benefit in COVID-19 does not exist for any antiviral treatments, although for each treatment evidence has not excluded important benefit. Additional randomized controlled trials involving patients with COVID-19 will be needed before such treatments can be administered with confidence.
Topics: Amides; Antiviral Agents; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Chloroquine; Coronavirus Infections; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; Indoles; Influenza, Human; Lopinavir; Observational Studies as Topic; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; Pyrazines; Ribavirin; Ritonavir; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 32493740
DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.200647 -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... Jun 2017Evidence-based recommendations for treating persons having presumed latent tuberculosis (LTBI) after contact to infectious multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis (TB)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND.
Evidence-based recommendations for treating persons having presumed latent tuberculosis (LTBI) after contact to infectious multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis (TB) are lacking because published data consist of small observational studies. Tuberculosis incidence in persons treated for latent MDR -TB infection is unknown.
METHODS.
We conducted a systematic review of studies published 1 January 1994-31 December 2014 to analyze TB incidence, treatment completion and discontinuation, and cost-effectiveness. We considered contacts with LTBI effectively treated if they were on ≥1 medication to which their MDR-TB strain was likely susceptible. We selected studies that compared treatment vs nontreatment outcomes and performed a meta-analysis to estimate the relative risk of TB incidence and its 95% confidence interval.
RESULTS.
We abstracted data from 21 articles that met inclusion criteria. Six articles presented outcomes for contacts who were treated compared with those not treated for MDR-LTBI; 10 presented outcomes only for treated contacts, and 5 presented outcomes only for untreated contacts. The estimated MDR-TB incidence reduction was 90% (9%-99%) using data from 5 comparison studies. We also found high treatment discontinuation rates due to adverse effects in persons taking pyrazinamide-containing regimens. Cost-effectiveness was greatest using a fluoroquinolone/ethambutol combination regimen.
CONCLUSIONS.
Few studies met inclusion criteria, therefore results should be cautiously interpreted. We found a reduced risk of TB incidence with treatment for MDR-LTBI, suggesting effectiveness in prevention of progression to MDR-TB, and confirmed cost-effectiveness. However, we found that pyrazinamide-containing MDR-LTBI regimens often resulted in treatment discontinuation due to adverse effects.
Topics: Antitubercular Agents; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Disease Progression; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; Ethambutol; Fluoroquinolones; Humans; Latent Tuberculosis; Pyrazinamide; Treatment Outcome; Tuberculosis, Multidrug-Resistant
PubMed: 28329197
DOI: 10.1093/cid/cix208 -
PloS One 2024To evaluate the efficacy and safety of multi-drug therapy based on eszopiclone in the treatment of insomnia after stroke using a network meta-analysis method and to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of multi-drug therapy based on eszopiclone in the treatment of insomnia after stroke using a network meta-analysis method and to provide evidence for clinical practice.
METHOD
Computer searches of PubMed, Excerpt Medica Database (Embase), Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials, APA PsycInfo, CNKI, WanFang, Sinomed and other databases were performed to search for clinical randomized controlled studies (RCTs) on multi-drug therapy based on eszopiclone in the treatment of insomnia patients after stroke. The search time was from the establishment of each database until July 2023. The bias risk assessment tool recommended by Cochrane was used to evaluate the quality of the included RCTs. Stata 14.0 was applied to perform network meta-analysis using Review Manager 5.3 software for traditional meta-analysis.
RESULT
Eighteen RCTs and 1646 patients were ultimately included, involving 11 treatment options. The results of the network meta-analysis showed that the ranking of Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) decline was eszopiclone combined with sweet dream oral liquid (ESZ+SDOL)>eszopiclone combined with a shugan jieyu capsule (ESZ+SGJYC)>eszopiclone combined with agomelatine (ESZ+AGO)>eszopiclone combined with flupentixol and melitracen tablets (ESZ+FMT)>eszopiclone combined with yangxue qingnao granules (ESZ+YXQNG)>eszopiclone combined with mirtazapine (ESZ+MIR)>ESZ>FMT; the modified Edinburgh Scandinavia Stroke Scale (MESSS) decline ranking was ESZ+SDOL>ESZ+AGO>ESZ; and the clinical total effective rate ranking was eszopiclone combined with a xuefu zhuyu capsule (ESZ+XFZYC)>ESZ+MIR>ESZ+SGJYC>ESZ+SDOL> ESZ+FMT>ESZ+YXQNG>ESZ>FMT. In terms of clinical adverse reactions, in addition to ESZ therapy, ESZ+ESC had the highest number of adverse reactions, with abdominal pain being the most common. ESZ+YXQNG had the most types of adverse reactions, with 8 types.
CONCLUSION
Multi-drug therapy based on eszopiclone can effectively improve the sleep quality of patients with insomnia after stroke, and ESZ+SDOL has significant efficacy and safety. However, due to the limitations of this study, efficacy ranking cannot fully explain the superiority or inferiority of clinical efficacy. In the future, more multicentre, large sample, double-blind randomized controlled trials are needed to supplement and demonstrate the results of this study.
Topics: Humans; Eszopiclone; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Network Meta-Analysis; Stroke; Double-Blind Method; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38315683
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297064 -
Journal of Infection in Developing... Sep 2022COVID-19 is a coronavirus-based infectious illness that was first detected at the end of 2019 in Wuhan, China. The novel virus induces severe acute respiratory syndrome... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
COVID-19 is a coronavirus-based infectious illness that was first detected at the end of 2019 in Wuhan, China. The novel virus induces severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-2) and has spread globally, resulting in an ongoing pandemic. There is still a lack of evidence for direct comparison of favipiravir therapy. Network meta-analysis (NMA), may incorporate direct and indirect comparisons in a pooled computation while depending on strong assumptions and premises. This study provides evidence-based recommendations on the safety of currently used clinical pharmacological treatments compared to favipiravir for COVID-19 patients.
METHODOLOGY
We conducted a systematic review and Bayesian NMA. We searched the primary databases and clinical trials center for reports of short-term, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of favipiravir for COVID-19 treatment. The primary endpoints here considered were any adverse events observed or reported during the treatment cycle with estimates of odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), until November 6, 2021.
RESULTS
Between January 2020 and July 2021, 908 individuals were randomly assigned to one of the seven active prescription medication regimens or placebo in this study, generating seven direct comparisons on 12 data points. The safety of favipiravir over the four clinically efficacious monotherapies or combinations including tocilizumab, arbidol, lopinavir + ritonavir, and chloroquine remained unknown due to the lack of a significant difference and the limited sample size.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, comparative rankings could assist doctors and guideline developers in decision-making. We have also concluded that the safety of favipiravir requires further attention.
Topics: Amides; Chloroquine; Humans; Lopinavir; Network Meta-Analysis; Pyrazines; Ritonavir; SARS-CoV-2; Treatment Outcome; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 36223614
DOI: 10.3855/jidc.16083 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Dec 2012To investigate the effectiveness of non-benzodiazepine hypnotics (Z drugs) and associated placebo responses in adults and to evaluate potential moderators of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the effectiveness of non-benzodiazepine hypnotics (Z drugs) and associated placebo responses in adults and to evaluate potential moderators of effectiveness in a dataset used to approve these drugs.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCE
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
STUDY SELECTION
Randomised double blind parallel placebo controlled trials of currently approved Z drugs (eszopiclone, zaleplon, and zolpidem).
DATA EXTRACTION
Change score from baseline to post-test for drug and placebo groups; drug efficacy analysed as the difference of both change scores. Weighted raw and standardised mean differences with their confidence intervals under random effects assumptions for polysomnographic and subjective sleep latency, as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included waking after sleep onset, number of awakenings, total sleep time, sleep efficiency, and subjective sleep quality. Weighted least square regression analysis was used to explain heterogeneity of drug effects.
DATA SYNTHESIS
13 studies containing 65 separate drug-placebo comparisons by type of outcome, type of drug, and dose were included. Studies included 4378 participants from different countries and varying drug doses, lengths of treatment, and study years. Z drugs showed significant, albeit small, improvements (reductions) in our primary outcomes: polysomnographic sleep latency (weighted standardised mean difference, 95% confidence interval -0.57 to -0.16) and subjective sleep latency (-0.33, -0.62 to -0.04) compared with placebo. Analyses of weighted mean raw differences showed that Z drugs decreased polysomnographic sleep latency by 22 minutes (-33 to -11 minutes) compared with placebo. Although no significant effects were found in secondary outcomes, there were insufficient studies reporting these outcomes to allow firm conclusions. Moderator analyses indicated that sleep latency was more likely to be reduced in studies published earlier, with larger drug doses, with longer duration of treatment, with a greater proportion of younger and/or female patients, and with zolpidem.
CONCLUSION
Compared with placebo, Z drugs produce slight improvements in subjective and polysomnographic sleep latency, especially with larger doses and regardless of type of drug. Although the drug effect and the placebo response were rather small and of questionable clinical importance, the two together produced to a reasonably large clinical response.
Topics: Acetamides; Adult; Aged; Azabicyclo Compounds; Confidence Intervals; Eszopiclone; Female; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Male; Middle Aged; Piperazines; Polysomnography; Pyridines; Pyrimidines; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Treatment Outcome; United States; United States Food and Drug Administration; Zolpidem
PubMed: 23248080
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.e8343 -
Medicine Nov 2016Renal insufficiency is a common and severe complication of patients with multiple myeloma. The aim of this study was to evaluate bortezomib-based treatment for multiple... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Renal insufficiency is a common and severe complication of patients with multiple myeloma. The aim of this study was to evaluate bortezomib-based treatment for multiple myeloma patients with renal insufficiency.
METHODS
The Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, ISI, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Service System, Chongqing VIP Database, and Wan Fang Data were systematically searched to identify observational studies from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2015. Myeloma response rate and renal remission rate were pooled by using risk ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI). The Cochran Q and I statistics were used to assess heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis was performed to test the feasibility of pooled results. Publication bias was conducted when included studies were ≥9. Furthermore, grades of evidence were performed to evaluate study quality.
RESULTS
Eleven retrospective cohort studies were included in the final analysis. The number of available studies and risk ratios (95% CI) were, respectively, 10 and 1.48 (95% CI: 1.28-1.71) for myeloma overall response, 6 and 3.69 (95% CI: 2.22-6.13) for myeloma complete response, 9 and 1.47 (95% CI: 1.28-1.69) for renal overall remission, and 8 and 1.49 (95% CI: 1.26-1.75) for renal complete remission. No significant publication bias was observed and sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of results. The overall qualities of evidence were high for myeloma complete response and medium for the other 3 outcomes based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system.
CONCLUSION
Current evidence indicated that bortezomib-based treatment could improve myeloma overall response (especially myeloma complete response) and renal overall remission (including renal complete remission).
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Bortezomib; Humans; Multiple Myeloma; Observational Studies as Topic; Remission Induction; Renal Insufficiency
PubMed: 27861343
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000005202