Anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies and risk of severe Haematological adverse events in Cancer Patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 37 (8) ◽  
pp. e83
Author(s):  
M. Miroddi ◽  
P. Pellegrino ◽  
C. Sterrantino ◽  
L. Caridi ◽  
A. Rollo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Monoclonal Antibodies ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Meta Analysis

Antifungal Prophylaxis in Cancer Patients After Chemotherapy or Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (34) ◽  
pp. 5471-5489 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eyal Robenshtok ◽  
Anat Gafter-Gvili ◽  
Elad Goldberg ◽  
Miriam Weinberger ◽  
Moshe Yeshurun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Stem Cell ◽  
Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Antifungal Prophylaxis ◽  
Hematopoietic Stem ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Related Mortality

Purpose To evaluate the effect of antifungal prophylaxis on all-cause mortality as primary outcome, invasive fungal infections (IFIs), and adverse events. Many studies have evaluated the role of antifungal prophylaxis in cancer patients, with inconsistent conclusions. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials comparing systemic antifungals with placebo, no intervention, or other antifungal agents for prophylaxis in cancer patients after chemotherapy. The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, conference proceedings, and references were searched. Two reviewers independently appraised the quality of trials and extracted data. Results Sixty-four trials met inclusion criteria. Antifungal prophylaxis decreased all-cause mortality significantly at end of follow-up compared with placebo, no treatment, or nonsystemic antifungals (relative risk [RR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.95). In allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients, prophylaxis reduced all-cause mortality (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.85), fungal-related mortality, and documented IFI. In acute leukemia patients, there was a significant reduction in fungal-related mortality and documented IFI, whereas the difference in mortality was only borderline significant (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.06). Prophylaxis with itraconazole suspension reduced documented IFI when compared with fluconazole, with no difference in survival, and at the cost of more adverse events. On the basis of two studies, posaconazole prophylaxis reduced all-cause mortality (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.98), fungal-related mortality, and IFI when compared with fluconazole. Conclusion Antifungal prophylaxis decreases all-cause mortality significantly in patients after chemotherapy. Antifungal prophylaxis should be administered to patients undergoing allogeneic HSCT, and should probably be administered to high-risk acute leukemia patients.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies for the Prevention of Migraine Compared with Placebo: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaojing Yi ◽  
Yun Chen ◽  
Kun Chen ◽  
Mo Liu ◽  
Jiale Yi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Monoclonal Antibodies ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Injection Site ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Upper Respiratory Tract ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Upper Respiratory ◽  
Secondary Outcomes

Abstract Background: Calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) are a novel class of drugs for migraine that includes erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab and eptinezumab. In clinical trials, CGRP mAbs have been reported to show good efficacy in the prevention of episodic migraines or chronic migraines. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CGRP monoclonal antibodies in this study.Methods: We systematically searched for randomized controlled trials in the PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Library databases. The primary outcome was overall mean change from baseline to end of treatment in the number of monthly migraine headache days (MMHDs). The secondary outcomes included 50% response rate, in the number of monthly headache days (MHDs), in the number of monthly headache hours (MHHs), and in the number of monthly acute migraine-specific medication days (MSMDs). The safety outcomes were evaluated in terms of reported adverse events. Results: Eighteen studies including 11,099 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that CGRP mAbs exhibited a significant benefit in reducing the number of MMHDs compared to placebo (Episodic migraine: Std. MD -0.42, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.36; Chronic migraine: Std. MD -0.28, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.21). Similarly, CGRP mAbs were superior to placebo in the secondary outcomes of 50% response rate, MHDs, MHHs, and MSMDs. With respect to safety, serious adverse events and withdrawal due to adverse events were not significantly associated with CGRP mAbs. Fremanezumab was associated with a significantly higher incidence of any adverse event compared with placebo (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.17). Galcanezumab was associated with significantly higher treatment-emergent adverse events compared with placebo (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.17). Constipation and injection site pain were significantly higher with erenumab than placebo. Injection site erythema and injection site induration were significantly higher with fremanezumab than placebo. Upper respiratory tract infection, injection site erythema, injection site pruritus and injection site reaction were significantly higher with galcanezumab than placebo. Conclusions: This study confirms that CGRP mAbs are effective as preventive treatments for episodic migraines and chronic migraines. Adverse reactions at the injection site were associated with erenumab, fremanezumab and galcanezumab therapy. Constipation was more common with erenumab. The risk of upper respiratory tract infection was higher with galcanezumab.Systematic review registration: Our PROSPERO protocol registration number: CRD42019125928. Registered 26 November 2019.

Risk of endocrine adverse events in cancer patients treated with PD-1 inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Immunotherapy ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 261-272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yan hong Shang ◽  
Yu Zhang ◽  
Jing hua Li ◽  
Peng Li ◽  
Xi Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Meta Analysis

scholarly journals P01.06 Overweight and obesity as biomarkers for survival outcomes and immune related adverse events undergoing immunotherapy – a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. A5.2-A6
Author(s):  
P Trinkner ◽  
S Günther ◽  
M von Bergwelt ◽  
D Cordas dos Santos ◽  
S Theurich
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Normal Weight ◽  
Overweight And Obesity ◽  
Obese Patients ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Underweight Patients ◽  
The Impact

BackgroundThe impact of overweight/obesity in cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is controversial. To further contribute to this debate, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published articles evaluating the effects of overweight/obesity on survival and immune-related adverse events (irAEs).Materials and MethodsIn analogy to Cochrane recommendations, systematic literature searches included all published articles in PubMed until February 2021 with key terms ‘obesity’ and ‘overweight’ and ICI treatment irrespective of cancer entity and ICI used. Further selection criteria for meta-analysis included WHO cut-offs for overweight/obesity. For the random effects meta-analysis, we used Hazard Ratios (HR) for overall and progression-free survival (OS, PFS) and Odds Ratios (OR) for occurrence of irAEs with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95%CI), respectively.ResultsA total of 30 studies (12,895 patients, 38% female) selected for meta-analysis revealed a superior survival of overweight/obese patients (PFS: HR 0.9, 95%CI 0.77-1.04, p = 0.11; OS: 0.74, 95%CI 0.63-0.92, p = 0.0005) compared to normal weight patients. In subgroup analyses based on sex, overweight/obese male patients showed increased survival (PFS: HR 0.79, 95%CI 0.63-1.00, p = 0.05; OS: 0.71, 95%CI 0.58-0.86, p = 0.0005), whereas overweight/obese female patients had similar survival probabilities compared to their normal weight counterparts (PFS: HR 1.01, 95%CI 0.69-1.47, p = 0.96; OS: HR 0.73, 95%CI 0.48-1.10, p = 0.13). Underweight patients showed inferior survival (PFS: HR 1.48, 95%CI 1.07-2.04, p = 0.02; OS: HR 1.86, 95%CI 1.13-3.04, p = 0.01). In addition, overweight/obese patients had a higher risk of developing irAEs with grade ≥ 3 (OR 1.91, 95%CI 1.18-3.10, p = 0.008).ConclusionsOur meta-analysis revealed that overweight/obesity is a beneficial factor for PFS and OS in a mixed cohort of cancer patients undergoing ICI treatment accompanied by an increased risk of severe irAEs. The differences between overweight/obese males and overweight/obese females might point to sex specific adipose distribution patterns and interactions of sex steroids on a molecular level. A significant number of studies included underweight patients into normal weight control groups which led to a compromised interpretation of the data and should be addressed in future studies.Disclosure InformationP. Trinkner: None. S. Günther: None. M. von Bergwelt: None. D. Cordas dos Santos: None. S. Theurich: None.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document