-
Lung Cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) Feb 2023Thymic carcinoma (TC) is a rare cancer and patients failing initial chemotherapy (relapse/refractory) face limited therapeutic options given no approved options or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Thymic carcinoma (TC) is a rare cancer and patients failing initial chemotherapy (relapse/refractory) face limited therapeutic options given no approved options or consensus standard of care. This study aimed to identify and summarize clinical outcomes of all regimens evaluated in clinical trials of relapsed or refractory patients. Interventional trials enrolling advanced TC patients who failed first-line chemotherapy and reported outcomes in this group were eligible for inclusion in our systemic literature review (SLR). Between-study heterogeneity was assessed to determine the feasibility of pooling specific studies and treatments. Objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and duration of response (DOR) endpoints were of interest for meta-analysis. Nineteen trials were identified in the SLR. Three trials with one or two TC patients were removed from our assessment to reduce publication bias. Response rates among studies with at least ten TC patients varied from 9 % to 38 %. Pooled ORRs in patients receiving S-1 (46 patients), sunitinib (46 patients), or pembrolizumab (66 patients) were 28 %, 24 %, and 21 %, respectively. Prolonged duration of response with pembrolizumab was observed with a pooled median of 23.8 months (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 12, not reached). Median PFS of five months or greater was reported in patients treated with sunitinib, lenvatinib, pembrolizumab, capecitabine + gemcitabine, everolimus, or S-1. Median OS of 20 months or greater was reported in trials evaluating S-1 or pembrolizumab; this endpoint was not reached in trials evaluating lenvatinib, regorafenib, or sunitinib. Generalizability of treatment effects is challenging in the research of rare diseases and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes may help to increase precision and relevance of results to the larger TC population. Our study found limited treatment options upon relapse, demonstrating a need for further investigations into novel therapeutics and well-powered clinical trials to better inform on optimal treatments.
Topics: Humans; Sunitinib; Thymoma; Platinum; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Lung Neoplasms; Thymus Neoplasms; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
PubMed: 36638588
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2023.01.003 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jan 2010To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab, combined with interferon (IFN), sorafenib tosylate, sunitinib and temsirolimus in the... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab, combined with interferon (IFN), sorafenib tosylate, sunitinib and temsirolimus in the treatment of people with advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC).
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, were searched up to September/October 2007 (and again in February 2008).
REVIEW METHODS
Systematic reviews and randomised clinical trials comparing any of the interventions with any of the comparators in participants with advanced and/or metastatic RCC were included, also phase II studies and conference abstracts if there was sufficient detail to adequately assess quality. Results were synthesised narratively and a decision-analytic Markov-type model was developed to simulate disease progression and estimate the cost-effectiveness of the interventions under consideration.
RESULTS
A total of 888 titles and abstracts were retrieved in the clinical effectiveness review, including reports of eight clinical trials. Treatment with bevacizumab plus IFN or sunitinib had clinically relevant and statistically significant advantages over treatment with IFN alone, in terms of progression-free survival and tumour response, doubling median progression-free survival from approximately 5 months to 10 months. Temsirolimus had similar advantages over treatment with IFN in terms of progression-free and overall survival, increasing median overall survival from 7.3 to 10.9 months [hazard ratio (HR) 0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.92)], as did sorafenib in comparison with best supportive care in terms of overall survival, progression-free survival and tumour response, with a doubling of progression-free survival (HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.60). However, the last was associated with an increased frequency of hypertension and hand-foot skin reaction compared with placebo. No fully published economic evaluations of any of the interventions could be located. However, estimates from the PenTAG model suggested that none of the interventions would be considered cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 30,000 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Estimates of cost per QALY ranged from 71,462 pounds for sunitinib to 171,301 pounds for bevacizumab plus IFN. Although there are many similarities in the methodology and structural assumptions employed by PenTAG and the manufacturers of the interventions, in all cases the cost-effectiveness estimates from the PenTAG model were higher than those presented in the manufacturers' submissions. Cost-effectiveness estimates were particularly sensitive to variations in the estimates of treatment effectiveness, drug pricing (including dose intensity data), and health-state utility input parameters.
CONCLUSIONS
Treatment with bevacizumab plus IFN and sunitinib has clinically relevant and statistically significant advantages over treatment with IFN alone in patients with metastatic RCC. In people with three of six risk factors for poor prognosis, temsirolimus had clinically relevant advantages over treatment with IFN, and sorafenib tosylate was superior to best supportive care as second-line therapy. The frequency of adverse events associated with bevacizumab plus IFN, sunitinib and temsirolimus was comparable with that seen with IFN, although the adverse event profile is different. Treatment with sorafenib was associated with a significantly increased frequency of hypertension and hand-foot syndrome. Estimates from the PenTAG model suggested that none of the interventions would be considered cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 30,000 pounds per QALY.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Benzenesulfonates; Bevacizumab; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Indoles; Kidney Neoplasms; Niacinamide; Phenylurea Compounds; Pyridines; Pyrroles; Sirolimus; Sorafenib; Sunitinib
PubMed: 20028613
DOI: 10.3310/hta14020 -
Drug Safety May 2018Rheumatic diseases are autoimmune, inflammatory diseases often associated with cardiovascular (CV) disease, a major cause of mortality in these patients. In recent... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Rheumatic diseases are autoimmune, inflammatory diseases often associated with cardiovascular (CV) disease, a major cause of mortality in these patients. In recent years, treatment with biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), either as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs, have become the standard of treatment. In this systematic literature review, we evaluated the effect of treatment with biologic or tofacitinib on the CV risk and outcomes in these patients.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for articles reporting on CV risk and events in patients with rheumatic disease treated with a biologic agent or tofacitinib. Articles identified were subjected to two levels of screening. Articles that passed the first level based on title and abstract were assessed on full-text evaluation. The quality of randomized clinical trials was assessed by Jadad scoring system and the quality of the other studies and abstracts was assessed using the Downs and Black instrument. The data extracted included study design, baseline patient characteristics, and measurements of CV risk and events.
RESULTS
Of the 5722 articles identified in the initial search, screening yielded 105 unique publications from 90 unique studies (33 clinical trials, 39 prospective cohort studies, and an additional 18 retrospective studies) that reported CV risk outcomes. A risk of bias analysis for each type of report indicated that they were of good or excellent quality. Importantly, despite some limitations in data reported, there were no indications of significant increase in adverse CV events or risk in response to treatment with the agents evaluated.
CONCLUSIONS
Treatment with biologic or tofacitinib appears to be well-tolerated with respect to CV outcomes in these patients.
Topics: Animals; Antirheumatic Agents; Biological Products; Cardiovascular Diseases; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Piperidines; Prospective Studies; Pyrimidines; Pyrroles; Retrospective Studies; Rheumatic Diseases; Risk Factors
PubMed: 29318514
DOI: 10.1007/s40264-017-0628-9 -
PloS One 2012Emerging evidence from biological and epidemiological studies has suggested that body iron stores and heme-iron intake may be related to the risk of type 2 diabetes... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Emerging evidence from biological and epidemiological studies has suggested that body iron stores and heme-iron intake may be related to the risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D). We aimed to examine the association of body iron stores and heme-iron intake with T2D risk by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of previously published studies.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
Systematic review and subsequent meta-analysis were conducted by searching MEDLINE database up to June 22, 2012 to identify studies that analyzed the association of body iron stores or dietary heme-iron intake with T2D risk. The meta-analysis was performed using the effect estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to calculate the pooled risk estimates, while the heterogeneity among studies was examined using the I(2) and Q statistic.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis included 16 high-quality studies: 12 studies analyzed ferritin levels (4,366 T2D patients and 41,091 controls) and 4 measured heme-iron intake (9,246 T2D patients and 179,689 controls). The combined relative risk (RR) comparing the highest and lowest category of ferritin levels was 1.66 (95% CI: 1.15-2.39) for prospective studies, 2.29 (95% CI: 1.48-3.54) for cross-sectional studies with heterogeneity (Q = 14.84, p = 0.01, I(2) = 66.3%; Q = 44.16, p<0.001, I(2) = 88.7%). The combined RR comparing the highest and lowest category of heme-iron intake was 1.31 (95% CI: 1.21-1.43) with heterogeneity (Q = 1.39, p = 0.71, I(2) = 0%). No publication bias was found. Additional 15 studies that were of good quality, had significant results, and analyzed the association between body iron stores and T2D risk were qualitatively included in the systematic review.
CONCLUSIONS
The meta-analysis and systematic review suggest that increased ferritin levels and heme-iron intake are both associated with higher risk of T2D.
Topics: Animals; Biological Transport; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Heme; Humans; Iron; Risk
PubMed: 22848554
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0041641 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2022The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) to treat uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Concerns about... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) to treat uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Concerns about artemisinin resistance have led to global initiatives to develop new partner drugs to protect artemisinin derivatives in ACT. Pyronaridine-artesunate is a novel ACT.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy of pyronaridine-artesunate compared to alternative ACTs for treating people with uncomplicated P falciparum malaria, and to evaluate the safety of pyronaridine-artesunate and other pyronaridine treatments compared to alternative treatments.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; and LILACS. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the ISRCTN registry for ongoing or recently completed trials. The date of the last search was 27 October 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
For the efficacy analysis, we included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pyronaridine-artesunate for treating uncomplicated P falciparum malaria. For the safety analysis, we included RCTs that used pyronaridine alone or in combination with any other antimalarials. In addition to these analyses, we conducted a separate systematic review summarizing data on safety from non-randomized studies (NRS) of any patient receiving pyronaridine (NRS safety review). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted all data and assessed the certainty of the evidence. We meta-analysed data to calculate risk ratios (RRs) for treatment failures between comparisons, and for safety outcomes between and across comparisons.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 relevant RCTs. Seven RCTs were co-funded by Shin Poong Pharmaceuticals, and three were funded by government agencies. Efficacy analysis (RCTs) For the efficacy analysis, we identified five RCTs comprising 5711 participants. This included 4465 participants from 13 sites in Africa, and 1246 participants from five sites in Asia. The analysis included 541 children aged less than five years. Overall, pyronaridine-artesunate had a polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-adjusted treatment failure rate of less than 5%. We evaluated pyronaridine-artesunate versus the following. • Artemether-lumefantrine. Pyronaridine artesunate may perform better for PCR-adjusted failures at day 28 (RR 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.31; 4 RCTs, 3068 participants, low-certainty evidence); for unadjusted failures at day 28 (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.58; 4 RCTs, 3149 participants, low-certainty evidence); and for unadjusted failures at day 42 (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.82; 4 RCTs, 3080 participants, low-certainty evidence). For PCR-adjusted failures at day 42, there may be little or no difference between groups (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.51; 4 RCTs, 2575 participants, low-certainty evidence). • Artesunate-amodiaquine. Pyronaridine artesunate may perform better for PCR-adjusted failures at day 28 (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.77; 1 RCT, 1245 participants, low-certainty evidence); probably performs better for unadjusted failures at day 28 (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.81; 1 RCT, 1257 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); may make little or no difference for PCR-adjusted failures at day 42 (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.83; 1 RCT, 1091 participants, low-certainty evidence); and probably makes little or no difference for unadjusted failures at day 42 (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.23; 1 RCT, 1235 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). • Mefloquine plus artesunate. Pyronaridine artesunate may perform better for PCR-adjusted failures at day 28 (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.05; 1 RCT, 1117 participants, low-certainty evidence); probably performs better for unadjusted failures at day 28 (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.78; 1 RCT, 1120 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); may make little or no difference for unadjusted failures at day 42 (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.31; 1 RCT, 1059 participants, low-certainty evidence); but may lead to higher PCR-adjusted failures at day 42 (RR 1.80, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.57; 1 RCT, 1037 participants, low-certainty evidence). Safety analysis (RCTs) For the RCT safety analysis, we identified eight RCTs, one of which was delineated by study site, comparing pyronaridine-artesunate to other antimalarials. Pyronaridine-artesunate was associated with raised liver enzymes compared to other antimalarials: alanine aminotransferase (ALT) (RR 3.59, 95% CI 1.76 to 7.33; 8 RCTS, 6669 participants, high-certainty evidence) and aspartate transaminase (AST) (RR 2.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 4.41; 8 RCTs, 6669 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). No such effect was demonstrated with bilirubin (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.18; 7 RCTs, 6384 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). There was one reported case in which raised ALT occurred with raised bilirubin. No study reported severe drug-induced liver injury. Electrocardiograph (ECG) abnormalities were less common with pyronaridine-artesunate compared to other antimalarials. We identified no other safety concerns. NRS safety review A review on safety in NRS allowed us to increase the population within which safety was assessed. We included seven studies with 9546 participants: five single-arm observational studies, one cohort event monitoring study, and one dose-escalation study. All studies provided data on adverse event frequency, with a small number of participants experiencing serious adverse events and adverse effects related to pyronaridine: serious adverse events average 0.37%; drug-related 9.0%. In two studies reporting elevations in liver enzymes, small percentages of participants (2.4% and 14.1% respectively) experienced increases in either ALT, AST, or bilirubin on day 7; however, these were small increases that returned to normal by day 42. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Pyronaridine-artesunate was efficacious against uncomplicated P falciparum malaria; achieved a PCR-adjusted treatment failure rate of less than 5% at days 28 and 42; and may be at least as good as, or better than, other marketed ACTs. Pyronaridine-artesunate increases the risk of episodes of abnormally raised ALT. The observational data did not signal an excess of clinically important adverse effects.
Topics: Antimalarials; Artemisinins; Artesunate; Bilirubin; Child; Drug Combinations; Humans; Malaria, Falciparum; Naphthyridines
PubMed: 35726133
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006404.pub4 -
Revista Medica Del Instituto Mexicano... Oct 2023Atorvastatin has been used in the management of dyslipidemia and little is known about the efficacy and safety of high-dose atorvastatin administration for secondary... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Atorvastatin has been used in the management of dyslipidemia and little is known about the efficacy and safety of high-dose atorvastatin administration for secondary prevention of Major Cardiovascular Events (MACE).
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the impact of high-dose atorvastatin on secondary prevention of MACE and adverse events.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of Pubmed, Embase, Bireme and Cochrane Library Plus databases was performed, with a time scope from 1990 to July 2022. Six randomized clinical trials were included with a total of 29,333 patients who were treated with 80 mg, 10 mg or placebo doses of Atorvastatin where the main outcomes evaluated were Major Cardiovascular Events (MACE), mortality and treatment safety.
RESULTS
In the comparative study between the use of Atorvastatin 80 mg and other therapies, a relative risk (RR) of 0.8 (95%CI 0.69-0.92) was found, representing a 20% reduction in risk (RRR) and a number needed to treat (NNT) of 30-55. In the analysis of adverse effects, an RR of 2.37 (95% CI 0.86-6.53) and a number needed to harm (NNH) of 14-19 were observed. The use of 80 mg atorvastatin is associated with similar adverse events at lower doses.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of atorvastatin 80 mg is effective in the secondary prevention of Major Cardiovascular Event (MACE). The drug has adverse events that should be taken into account in secondary prevention.
Topics: Humans; Atorvastatin; Cardiovascular Diseases
PubMed: 37934798
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.8319748 -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Oct 2013Tofacitinib is a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) which was recently approved by US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). There are several randomised clinical... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Tofacitinib is a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) which was recently approved by US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). There are several randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that have investigated the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A systematic review with a meta-analysis of RCTs was undertaken to determine the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in treating patients with RA.
METHODS
Electronic and clinical trials register databases were searched for published RCTs of tofacitinib between 2009 and 2013. Outcomes of interest include 20% and 50% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology Scale (ACR20 and ACR50) response rates, rates of infection, the number of immunological/haematological adverse events (AEs), deranged laboratory results (hepatic, renal, haematological tests and lipoprotein level) and the incidence of drug withdrawal.
RESULTS
Eight RCTs (n = 3,791) were reviewed. Significantly greater ACR20 response rates were observed in patients receiving tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg bid (twice daily) versus placebo at week 12, with risk ratios (RR) of 2.20 (95% CI 1.58, 3.07) and 2.38 (95% CI 1.81, 3.14) respectively. The effect was maintained at week 24 for 5 mg bid (RR 1.94; 95% CI 1.55, 2.44) and 10 mg bid (RR 2.20; 95% CI 1.76, 2.75). The ACR50 response rate was also significantly higher for patients receiving tofacitinib 5 mg bid (RR 2.91; 95% CI 2.03, 4.16) and 10 mg bid (RR 3.32; 95% CI 2.33, 4.72) compared to placebo at week 12. Patients in the tofacitinib group had significantly lower mean neutrophil counts, higher serum creatinine, higher percentage change of LDL/HDL and a higher risk of ALT/AST > 1 ULN (upper limit of normal) versus placebo. There were no significant differences in AEs and withdrawal due to AEs compared to placebo.
CONCLUSION
Tofacitinib is efficacious and well tolerated in patients with MTX-resistant RA up to a period of 24 weeks. However, haematological, liver function tests and lipoproteins should be monitored. Long-term efficacy and pharmacovigilance studies are recommended.
Topics: Adalimumab; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Humans; Janus Kinase 3; Piperidines; Pyrimidines; Pyrroles; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24139404
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-14-298 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jan 2018Several therapies have recently been approved for use in the NHS for pretreated advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (amRCC), but there is a lack of comparative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Several therapies have recently been approved for use in the NHS for pretreated advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (amRCC), but there is a lack of comparative evidence to guide decisions between them.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of axitinib (Inlyta, Pfizer Inc., NY, USA), cabozantinib (Cabometyx, Ipsen, Slough, UK), everolimus (Afinitor, Novartis, Basel, Switzerland), nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol-Myers Squibb, NY, USA), sunitinib (Sutent, Pfizer, Inc., NY, USA) and best supportive care (BSC) for people with amRCC who were previously treated with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic review and mixed-treatment comparison (MTC) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes were objective response rates (ORRs), adverse events (AEs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were searched from inception to January and June 2016 for RCTs and non-RCTs, respectively. Two reviewers abstracted data and performed critical appraisals.
REVIEW METHODS
A fixed-effects MTC was conducted for OS, PFS [hazard ratios (HRs)] and ORR (odds ratios), and all were presented with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). The RCT data formed the primary analyses, with non-RCTs and studies rated as being at a high risk of bias included in sensitivity analyses (SAs). HRQoL and AE data were summarised narratively. A partitioned survival model with health states for pre progression, post progression and death was developed to perform a cost-utility analysis. Survival curves were fitted to the PFS and OS results from the MTC. A systematic review of HRQoL was undertaken to identify sources of health state utility values.
RESULTS
Four RCTs ( = 2618) and eight non-RCTs ( = 1526) were included. The results show that cabozantinib has longer PFS than everolimus (HR 0.51, 95% CrI 0.41 to 0.63) and both treatments are better than BSC. Both cabozantinib (HR 0.66, 95% CrI 0.53 to 0.82) and nivolumab (HR 0.73, 95% CrI 0.60 to 0.89) have longer OS than everolimus. SAs were consistent with the primary analyses. The economic analysis, using drug list prices, shows that everolimus may be more cost-effective than BSC with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £45,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), as it is likely to be considered an end-of-life treatment. Cabozantinib has an ICER of £126,000 per QALY compared with everolimus and is unlikely to be cost-effective. Nivolumab was dominated by cabozantinib (i.e. more costly and less effective) and axitinib was dominated by everolimus.
LIMITATIONS
Treatment comparisons were limited by the small number of RCTs. However, the key limitation of the analysis is the absence of the drug prices paid by the NHS, which was a limitation that could not be avoided owing to the confidentiality of discounts given to the NHS.
CONCLUSIONS
The RCT evidence suggests that cabozantinib is likely to be the most effective for PFS and OS, closely followed by nivolumab. All treatments appear to delay disease progression and prolong survival compared with BSC, although the results are heterogeneous. The economic analysis shows that at list price everolimus could be recommended as the other drugs are much more expensive with insufficient incremental benefit. The applicability of these findings to the NHS is somewhat limited because existing confidential patient access schemes could not be used in the analysis. Future work using the discounted prices at which these drugs are provided to the NHS would better inform estimates of their relative cost-effectiveness.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016042384.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Topics: Anilides; Antineoplastic Agents; Axitinib; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Clinical Trials as Topic; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Everolimus; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Models, Econometric; Nivolumab; Pyridines; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Sunitinib; Technology Assessment, Biomedical; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 29393024
DOI: 10.3310/hta22060 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2017Neuropathic pain may be caused by nerve damage, and is often followed by changes to the central nervous system. Uncertainty remains regarding the effectiveness and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Neuropathic pain may be caused by nerve damage, and is often followed by changes to the central nervous system. Uncertainty remains regarding the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture treatments for neuropathic pain, despite a number of clinical trials being undertaken.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of acupuncture treatments for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four Chinese databases, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 14 February 2017. We also cross checked the reference lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with treatment duration of eight weeks or longer comparing acupuncture (either given alone or in combination with other therapies) with sham acupuncture, other active therapies, or treatment as usual, for neuropathic pain in adults. We searched for studies of acupuncture based on needle insertion and stimulation of somatic tissues for therapeutic purposes, and we excluded other methods of stimulating acupuncture points without needle insertion. We searched for studies of manual acupuncture, electroacupuncture or other acupuncture techniques used in clinical practice (such as warm needling, fire needling, etc).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and pain relief. The secondary outcomes were any pain-related outcome indicating some improvement, withdrawals, participants experiencing any adverse event, serious adverse events and quality of life. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and for continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. We also calculated number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) where possible. We combined all data using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE to generate 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six studies involving 462 participants with chronic peripheral neuropathic pain (442 completers (251 male), mean ages 52 to 63 years). The included studies recruited 403 participants from China and 59 from the UK. Most studies included a small sample size (fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm) and all studies were at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel. Most studies had unclear risk of bias for sequence generation (four out of six studies), allocation concealment (five out of six) and selective reporting (all included studies). All studies investigated manual acupuncture, and we did not identify any study comparing acupuncture with treatment as usual, nor any study investigating other acupuncture techniques (such as electroacupuncture, warm needling, fire needling).One study compared acupuncture with sham acupuncture. We are uncertain if there is any difference between the two interventions on reducing pain intensity (n = 45; MD -0.4, 95% CI -1.83 to 1.03, very low-quality evidence), and neither group achieved 'no worse than mild pain' (visual analogue scale (VAS, 0-10) average score was 5.8 and 6.2 respectively in the acupuncture and sham acupuncture groups, where 0 = no pain). There was limited data on quality of life, which showed no clear difference between groups. Evidence was not available on pain relief, adverse events or other pre-defined secondary outcomes for this comparison.Three studies compared acupuncture alone versus other therapies (mecobalamin combined with nimodipine, and inositol). Acupuncture may reduce the risk of 'no clinical response' to pain than other therapies (n = 209; RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.51), however, evidence was not available for pain intensity, pain relief, adverse events or any of the other secondary outcomes.Two studies compared acupuncture combined with other active therapies (mecobalamin, and Xiaoke bitong capsule) versus other active therapies used alone. We found that the acupuncture combination group had a lower VAS score for pain intensity (n = 104; MD -1.02, 95% CI -1.09 to -0.95) and improved quality of life (n = 104; MD -2.19, 95% CI -2.39 to -1.99), than those receiving other therapy alone. However, the average VAS score of the acupuncture and control groups was 3.23 and 4.25 respectively, indicating neither group achieved 'no worse than mild pain'. Furthermore, this evidence was from a single study with high risk of bias and a very small sample size. There was no evidence on pain relief and we identified no clear differences between groups on other parameters, including 'no clinical response' to pain and withdrawals. There was no evidence on adverse events.The overall quality of evidence is very low due to study limitations (high risk of performance, detection, and attrition bias, and high risk of bias confounded by small study size) or imprecision. We have limited confidence in the effect estimate and the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimated effect.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Due to the limited data available, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of acupuncture for neuropathic pain in general, or for any specific neuropathic pain condition when compared with sham acupuncture or other active therapies. Five studies are still ongoing and seven studies are awaiting classification due to the unclear treatment duration, and the results of these studies may influence the current findings.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Adult; Analgesics; Chronic Pain; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Humans; Inositol; Middle Aged; Neuralgia; Nimodipine; Pain Measurement; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vitamin B 12
PubMed: 29197180
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012057.pub2 -
JAMA Pediatrics May 2023Quantification of bilirubin in blood is essential for early diagnosis and timely treatment of neonatal hyperbilirubinemia. Handheld point-of-care (POC) devices may... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Quantification of bilirubin in blood is essential for early diagnosis and timely treatment of neonatal hyperbilirubinemia. Handheld point-of-care (POC) devices may overcome the current issues with conventional laboratory-based bilirubin (LBB) quantification.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically evaluate the reported diagnostic accuracy of POC devices compared with LBB quantification.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic literature search was conducted in 6 electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and Google Scholar) up to December 5, 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
Studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis if they had a prospective cohort, retrospective cohort, or cross-sectional design and reported on the comparison between POC device(s) and LBB quantification in neonates aged 0 to 28 days. Point-of-care devices needed the following characteristics: portable, handheld, and able to provide a result within 30 minutes. This study was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data extraction was performed by 2 independent reviewers into a prespecified, customized form. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Meta-analysis was performed of multiple Bland-Altman studies using the Tipton and Shuster method for the main outcome.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The main outcome was mean difference and limits of agreement in bilirubin levels between POC device and LBB quantification. Secondary outcomes were (1) turnaround time (TAT), (2) blood volumes, and (3) percentage of failed quantifications.
RESULTS
Ten studies met the inclusion criteria (9 cross-sectional studies and 1 prospective cohort study), representing 3122 neonates. Three studies were considered to have a high risk of bias. The Bilistick was evaluated as the index test in 8 studies and the BiliSpec in 2. A total of 3122 paired measurements showed a pooled mean difference in total bilirubin levels of -14 μmol/L, with pooled 95% CBs of -106 to 78 μmol/L. For the Bilistick, the pooled mean difference was -17 μmol/L (95% CBs, -114 to 80 μmol/L). Point-of-care devices were faster in returning results compared with LBB quantification, whereas blood volume needed was less. The Bilistick was more likely to have a failed quantification compared with LBB.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Despite the advantages that handheld POC devices offer, these findings suggest that the imprecision for measurement of neonatal bilirubin needs improvement to tailor neonatal jaundice management.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Humans; Prospective Studies; Bilirubin; Retrospective Studies; Cross-Sectional Studies; Point-of-Care Testing
PubMed: 36912856
DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2023.0059