Gemcitabine-based combination therapy compared with gemcitabine alone for advanced pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis of nine randomized controlled trials

This meta-analysis aims to compare intravenous colistin monotherapy and colistin-based combination therapy against carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria (GNB) infections. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched up to July 2018. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating colistin alone and colistin-based combination therapy in the treatment of carbapenem-resistant GNB infections were included. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Five RCTs including 791 patients were included. Overall, colistin monotherapy was associated with a risk ratio (RR) of 1.03 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.89–1.20, I2 = 0%) for all-cause mortality compared with colistin-based combination therapy. The non-significant difference was also detected in infection-related mortality (RR, 1.23, 95% CI, 0.91–1.67, I2 = 0%) and microbiologic response (RR, 0.86, 95% CI, 0.72–1.04, I2 = 62%). In addition, no significant difference was observed in the subgroup analysis—high or low dose, with or without a loading dose, carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii infections, and in combination with rifampicin. Finally, colistin monotherapy was not associated with lower nephrotoxicity than colistin combination therapy (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84–1.21, I2 = 0%). Based on the analysis of the five RCTs, no differences were found between colistin monotherapy and colistin-based combination therapy against carbapenem-resistant GNB infections, especially for A. baumannii infections.

Download Full-text

Organ-Specific Immune-Related Adverse Events Associated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Monotherapy Versus Combination Therapy in Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Frontiers in Pharmacology ◽

10.3389/fphar.2019.01671 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Lijun Da ◽

Yuanjun Teng ◽

Na Wang ◽

Karen Zaguirre ◽

Yating Liu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Combination Therapy ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Immune Checkpoint ◽

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽

Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Organ Specific

Download Full-text

Intranasal Azelastine and Fluticasone as Combination Therapy for Allergic Rhinitis: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Otolaryngology ◽

10.1177/0194599819841883 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 161 (3) ◽

pp. 412-418

Author(s):

Peter M. Debbaneh ◽

Anna K. Bareiss ◽

Sarah K. Wise ◽

Edward D. McCoul

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Allergic Rhinitis ◽

Combination Therapy ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Nasal Spray ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Patient Reported ◽

Symptom Scores

Objective Combination therapy with intranasal azelastine and fluticasone propionate is an option for treatment of allergic rhinitis. This systematic review and meta-analysis examines existing literature to determine efficacy in treating allergic rhinitis compared to monotherapy. Data Sources The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and MEDLINE databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials using AzeFlu nasal spray. Review Methods Randomized, controlled trials that reported symptom relief of allergic rhinitis in males and females of all ages were included. Results were reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) standard. Results Systematic review identified 8 articles suitable for review. The risk of bias was generally low. All studies exhibited a greater decrease in patient-reported symptom scores in patients treated with combination therapy compared to monotherapy or placebo. Meta-analysis revealed superiority of combination therapy in reducing Total Nasal Symptom Score compared to placebo (mean change from baseline: −2.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], −2.82 to −1.99; P < .001; I 2 = 60%), azelastine (mean change from baseline: −1.40; 95% CI, −1.82 to −0.98; P < .001; I 2 = 0%), and fluticasone (mean change from baseline: −0.74; 95% CI, −1.17 to −0.31; P < .001; I 2 = 12%). Conclusion Current evidence supports both efficacy and superiority of combination intranasal azelastine and fluticasone in reducing patient-reported symptom scores in patients with allergic rhinitis. Combination nasal spray should be considered as second-line therapy in patients with allergic rhinitis that is not controlled with monotherapy.

Download Full-text