Efficacy and safety of laser combination therapy and laser alone therapy for keloid: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiahui Chen ◽  
Aiyue Chen ◽  
Jianhao Zhang ◽  
Feipeng Wang ◽  
Qiongfang Fang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Efficacy And Safety

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of PARP Inhibitor Combination Therapy in Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ning Ren ◽  
Leyin Zhang ◽  
Jieru Yu ◽  
Siqi Guan ◽  
Xinyang Dai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Parp Inhibitor ◽  
Recurrent Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Parp Inhibitors ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Efficacy And Safety

ObjectivesThough it is known to all that PARP inhibitors (PARPis) are effective when used as maintenance alone for women with recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC), little is known about whether using them in combination with other drugs would contribute to a better efficacy. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the efficacy and safety of PARPi combination therapy compared with monotherapy.Materials and MethodsWe searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that offered the date we needed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and major conference. Data extraction and processing were completed by three investigators to compare OS, PFS, and ORR both in intervention and in control subset. Then, we calculated the pooled RR and 95% CI of all-grade and high-grade adverse effects to study its safety. And we evaluated the within-study heterogeneity by using subgroup and sensitivity analysis.Results and ConclusionA total of three eligible RCTs covering 343 women were included. In PFS analysis, PARP inhibitor (PARPi) combination therapy can significantly improve PFS for women with ROC when compared with the controls (HR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.59), especially for those with mutated BRCA (HR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.45). And in OS analysis, combination therapy is not inferior to monotherapy (HR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.61). As for ORR, the effectiveness of combination therapy and monotherapy was almost the same (RR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.31). Additionally, combination therapy seldom causes more adverse events, both in all-grade and in high grade.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (identifier, CRD42018109933).

scholarly journals The Clinical Efficacy and Adverse Effects of Entecavir plus Thymosin alpha-1 Combination Therapy versus Entecavir Monotherapy in HBV-related Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Peng ◽  
Hai-Yan Xing ◽  
Chen Li ◽  
Xian-Feng Wang ◽  
Min Hou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Loss Rate ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Thymosin Alpha 1

Abstract Background Previous studies have demonstrated the benefits of thymosin alpha-1 (Tα1) in anti-virus, immunological enhancement and anti-inflammation. However, it is controversial about the efficacy and safety of entecavir (ETV) plus T α1 combination therapy versus ETV monotherapy in cirrhotic patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. Methods The systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ETV plus Tα1 combination therapy versus ETV monotherapy in HBV -related patients with cirrhosis. We performed a systematic literature search on seven databases. Relative risk (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) with a fixed- or random- effect model were calculated. Heterogeneity was assessed through a Cochrane Q-test and I 2 values. Results Seven RCTs involving 1144 subjects were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Compared with ETV monotherapy, ETV plus Tα1 combination therapy led to a higher complete response. In post treatment for 24 weeks, the HBV DNA undetectable rate and HBeAg loss rate were higher in ETV plus Tα1 group than in ETV alone group. However, after 48 and 52 weeks of treatment, there was no significant difference between the combination therapy and ETV monotherapy. At week 52 of treatment, the HBsAg loss rate of ETV plus Tα1 group was no significance with that of ETV alone group. In comparison with ETV alone, the some biochemical parameters and liver fibrosis were obviously improved by ETV plus Tα1 , and there was significant heterogeneity. In addition, the number of adverse events was significantly reduced by ETV plus Tα1, compared to ETV alone. Conclusions ETV plus Tα1 might lead to a higher clinical response and a lower comprehensive adverse reaction rate in HBV-related patients with cirrhosis, compared to ETV alone. However, the whole patients included in this meta-analysis were from Chinese mainland, so that more worldwide RCTs with a larger sample size are needed to verify the current findings.

scholarly journals The clinical efficacy and adverse effects of Entecavir plus Thymosin alpha-1 combination therapy versus Entecavir Monotherapy in HBV-related cirrhosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Peng ◽  
Hai-Yan Xing ◽  
Chen Li ◽  
Xian-Feng Wang ◽  
Min Hou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Loss Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Thymosin Alpha 1

Abstract Background Previous studies have demonstrated the benefits of thymosin alpha-1 (Tα1) in anti-virus, immunological enhancement and anti-inflammation. However, it is controversial about the efficacy and safety of entecavir (ETV) plus Tα1 combination therapy versus ETV monotherapy in cirrhotic patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. Methods The systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ETV plus Tα1 combination therapy versus ETV monotherapy in HBV-related patients with cirrhosis. We performed a systematic literature search via PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Science and Technology Journals Database (VIP), and Chinese Biological Medicine database (CBM). Relative risk (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) with a fixed- or random- effect model were calculated. Heterogeneity was assessed through a Cochrane Q-test and I2 values. Results Seven RCTs involving 1144 subjects were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Compared with ETV monotherapy, ETV plus Tα1 combination therapy led to a higher complete response (RR = 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07–1.30). In post treatment for 24 weeks, the HBV DNA undetectable rate and HBeAg loss rate were higher in ETV plus Tα1 group than in ETV alone group (RR = 1.91; 95% CI, 1.56–2.35; RR = 2.05; 95% CI, 1.62–2.60). However, after 48 and 52 weeks of treatment, there was no significant difference between the combination therapy and ETV monotherapy (RR = 1.07; 95% CI, 0.96–1.18; RR = 1.17; 95% CI, 0.89–1.55). At week 52 of treatment, the HBsAg loss rate of ETV plus Tα1 group was no significance with that of ETV alone group (RR = 1.03; 95% CI, 0.15–7.26). In comparison with ETV alone, the some biochemical parameters and liver fibrosis were obviously improved by ETV plus Tα1, and there was significant heterogeneity. In addition, the number of adverse events was significantly reduced by ETV plus Tα1, compared to ETV alone (RR = 0.48; 95% CI, 0.24–0.95). Conclusions ETV plus Tα1 might lead to a higher clinical response and a lower comprehensive adverse reaction rate in HBV-related patients with cirrhosis, compared to ETV alone. However, the whole patients included in this meta-analysis were from Chinese mainland, so that more worldwide RCTs with a larger sample size are needed to verify the current findings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document