scholarly journals Rheumatoid arthritis treated with 6-months of first-line biologic or biosimilar therapy: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis

Author(s):  
Emma L. Simpson ◽  
Shijie Ren ◽  
Emma S. Hock ◽  
John W. Stevens ◽  
Aymeric Binard ◽  
...  

AbstractObjectivesThe aim of this study was to estimate the effectiveness of first-line biologic disease modifying drugs(boDMARDs), and their approved biosimilars (bsDMARDs), compared with conventional (csDMARD) treatment, in terms of ACR (American College of Rheumatology) and EULAR (European League against Rheumatism) responses.MethodsSystematic literature search, on eight databases to January 2017, sought ACR and EULAR data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of boDMARDs / bsDMARDs (in combination with csDMARDs, or monotherapy). Two adult populations: methotrexate (MTX)-naïve patients with severe active RA; and csDMARD-experienced patients with moderate-to-severe active RA. Network meta-analyses (NMA) were conducted using a Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation using a random effects model with a probit link function for ordered categorical.ResultsForty-six RCTs met the eligibility criteria. In the MTX-naïve severe active RA population, no biosimilar trials meeting the inclusion criteria were identified. MTX plus methylprednisolone (MP) was most likely to achieve the best ACR response. There was insufficient evidence that combination boDMARDs was superior to intensive (two or more) csDMARDs. In the csDMARD-experienced, moderate-to-severe RA population, the greatest effects for ACR responses were associated with tocilizumab (TCZ) monotherapy, and combination therapy (plus MTX) with bsDMARD etanercept (ETN) SB4, boDMARD ETN and TCZ. These treatments also had the greatest effects on EULAR responses. No clear differences were found between the boDMARDs and their bsDMARDs.ConclusionsIn MTX-naïve patients, there was insufficient evidence that combination boDMARDs was superior to two or more csDMARDs. In csDMARD-experienced patients, boDMARDs and bsDMARDs were comparable and all combination boDMARDs / bsDMARDs were superior to single csDMARD.

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (6) ◽  
pp. 589-597
Author(s):  
BGS Casado ◽  
EP Pellizzer ◽  
JR Souto Maior ◽  
CAA Lemos ◽  
BCE Vasconcelos ◽  
...  

Clinical Relevance The use of laser light during bleaching will not reduce the incidence or severity of sensitivity and will not increase the degree of color change compared with nonlaser light sources. SUMMARY Objective: To evaluate whether the use of laser during in-office bleaching promotes a reduction in dental sensitivity after bleaching compared with other light sources. Methods: The present review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and is registered with PROSPERO (CDR42018096591). Searches were conducted in the PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant articles published up to August 2018. Only randomized clinical trials among adults that compared the use of laser during in-office whitening and other light sources were considered eligible. Results: After analysis of the texts retrieved during the database search, six articles met the eligibility criteria and were selected for the present review. For the outcome dental sensitivity, no significant difference was found favoring any type of light either for intensity (mean difference [MD]: −1.60; confidence interval [CI]: −3.42 to 0.22; p=0.09) or incidence (MD: 1.00; CI: 0.755 to 1.33; p=1.00). Regarding change in tooth color, no significant differences were found between the use of the laser and other light sources (MD: −2.22; CI: −6.36 to 1.93; p=0.29). Conclusions: Within the limitations of the present study, laser exerts no influence on tooth sensitivity compared with other light sources when used during in-office bleaching. The included studies demonstrated that laser use during in-office bleaching may have no influence on tooth color change.


BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. e017868
Author(s):  
Joey S.W. Kwong ◽  
Sheyu Li ◽  
Wan-Jie Gu ◽  
Hao Chen ◽  
Chao Zhang ◽  
...  

IntroductionEffective selection of coronary lesions for revascularisation is pivotal in the management of symptoms and adverse outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease. Recently, instantaneous ‘wave-free’ ratio (iFR) has been proposed as a new diagnostic index for assessing the severity of coronary stenoses without the need of pharmacological vasodilation. Evidence of the effectiveness of iFR-guided revascularisation is emerging and a systematic review is warranted.Methods and analysisThis is a protocol for a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and controlled observational studies. Electronic sources including MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase, Cochrane databases and ClinicalTrials.gov will be searched for potentially eligible studies investigating the effects of iFR-guided strategy in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation. Studies will be selected against transparent eligibility criteria and data will be extracted using a prestandardised data collection form by two independent authors. Risk of bias in included studies and overall quality of evidence will be assessed using validated methodological tools. Meta-analysis will be performed using the Review Manager software. Our systematic review will be performed according to the guidance from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. Results of the systematic review will be disseminated as conference proceedings and peer-reviewed journal publication.Trial registration numberThis protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42017065460.


Author(s):  
Iramar Nascimento ◽  
Guilherme Dienstmann ◽  
Matheus de Souza ◽  
Raquel Fleig ◽  
Carla Hoffmann ◽  
...  

Objective Does the use of metformin have an influence on the outcomes of preeclampsia (PE)? Sources of Data The descriptors pregnancy, metformin, treatment, and preeclampsia associated with the Boolean operators AND and OR were found in the MEDLINE, LILACS, Embase and Cochrane databases. A flowchart with exclusion criteria and inclusion strategy using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol, and eligibility criteria was used. Data were extracted regarding the type of study, the applied dosage, treatment time, segment, bias risks, and the Patient, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome (PICO) strategy to identify the quality of the study. Selection of Studies Total number of journals in the initial search (n = 824); exclusions from repeated articles on different search engines (n = 253); exclusions after reading the titles, when the title had no correlations with the proposed theme (n = 164); exclusions due to incompatibility with the criteria established in the methodological analysis (n = 185), exclusion of articles with lower correlation with the objective of the present study (n = 187); and final bibliographic selection (n = 35). Data Collection At first, a systematic review of the literature was performed. Subsequently, from the main selection, randomized and non-randomized trials with metformin that presented their results in absolute and relative numbers of PE outcomes were selected. The variables were treated statistically in the meta-analysis with the Review Manager software (RevMan), version 5.3. Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Denmark in the Hovedistaden region. Synthesis of Data The study showed that metmorfin presented greater preventive effects for pregnancy-induced hypertension and was less effective for PE. Conclusion Metformin may gain place in preventive treatments for PE, once the dosages, the gestational age, and treatment time are particularly evaluated. A methodological strategy with an improved perspective of innovative and/or carefully progressive dosages during pregnancy to avoid side effects and the possibility of maternal-fetal risks is suggested.


Author(s):  
Cécile Vors ◽  
Janie Allaire ◽  
Sonia Blanco Mejia ◽  
Tauseef A Khan ◽  
John L Sievenpiper ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT Recent data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) suggest that DHA may have stronger anti-inflammatory effects than EPA. This body of evidence has not yet been quantitatively reviewed. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of DHA and EPA on several markers of systemic inflammation by pairwise and network meta-analyses of RCTs. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library were searched through to September 2019. We included RCTs of ≥7 d on adults regardless of health status that directly compared the effects of DHA with EPA and RCTs of indirect comparisons, in which the effects of DHA or EPA were compared individually to a control fatty acid. Differences in circulating concentrations of C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) and adiponectin were the primary outcome measures. Data were pooled by pairwise and network meta-analysis and expressed as mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was assessed (Cochran Q statistic) and quantified (I2 statistic) in the pairwise meta-analysis. Inconsistency and transitivity were evaluated in the network meta-analysis. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Eligibility criteria were met by 5 RCTs (N = 411) for the pairwise meta-analysis and 20 RCTs (N = 1231) for the network meta-analysis. In the pairwise meta-analysis, DHA and EPA had similar effects on plasma CRP [MDDHA versus EPA = 0.14 mg/L (95% CI: –0.57, 0.85); I2 = 61%], IL-6 [MDDHA versus EPA = 0.10 pg/mL (–0.15, 0.34); I2 = 40%], and TNF-α [MDDHA versus EPA = –0.10 pg/mL (–0.37, 0.18); I2 = 40%]. In the network meta-analysis, the effects of DHA and EPA on plasma CRP [MDDHA versus EPA = –0.33 mg/L (–0.75, 0.10)], IL-6 [MDDHA versus EPA = 0.09 pg/mL (–0.12, 0.30)], and TNF-α [MDDHA versus EPA = –0.02 pg/mL (–0.25, 0.20)] were also similar. DHA and EPA had similar effects on plasma adiponectin in the network meta-analysis. Results from pairwise and network meta-analyses suggest that supplementation with either DHA or EPA does not differentially modify systemic markers of subclinical inflammation.


Author(s):  
Anna Ali ◽  
Zohra S Lassi ◽  
Kostas Kapellas ◽  
Lisa Jamieson ◽  
Alice R Rumbold

Abstract Background The incidence of human papillomavirus (HPV)-related oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (OPSCCs) is increasing globally. Common oral conditions such as periodontitis may contribute. We undertook a meta-analysis to quantify the association between periodontitis, oral HPV and OPSCCs. Methods Multiple electronic databases were searched until 12 February 2020. Studies conducted in males and/or females aged ≥ 18 years that examined periodontitis, periodontal procedures, oral HPV infection, and where possible, oral cancers, were eligible. Meta-analyses were conducted and the GRADE approach was used to examine the quality of evidence. Results Of 2709 studies identified, 13 met the eligibility criteria. Five studies could be included in the meta-analyses. There was no significant increase in the odds of high-risk oral HPV infection among individuals with confirmed periodontitis (odds ratio 4.71, 95% confidence interval 0.57–38.97). Individuals with periodontitis had a 3.65 times higher odds of having any type of oral HPV infection compared with those without periodontitis (95% confidence interval 1.67–8.01). The overall body of evidence was rated as low to very-low certainty. Conclusion Meta-analysis confirms there is a positive association between periodontitis and oral HPV infection, although the overall quality of this evidence is low. Evidence for an association between periodontitis and high-risk oral HPV infection is inconclusive.


2020 ◽  
pp. 219256822090681 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muthu Sathish ◽  
Ramakrishnan Eswar

Study Design: Systematic review. Objectives: To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery over the past 2 decades. Materials and Methods: We conducted independent and in duplicate systematic review of the published systematic reviews and meta-analyses between 2000 and 2019 from PubMed Central and Cochrane Database pertaining to spine surgery involving surgical intervention. We searched bibliographies to identify additional relevant studies. Methodological quality was evaluated with AMSTAR score and graded with AMSTAR 2 criteria. Results: A total of 96 reviews met the eligibility criteria, with mean AMSTAR score of 7.51 (SD = 1.98). Based on AMSTAR 2 criteria, 13.5% (n = 13) and 18.7% (n = 18) of the studies had high and moderate level of confidence of results, respectively, without any critical flaws. A total of 29.1% (n = 28) of the studies had at least 1 critical flaw and 38.5% (n = 37) of the studies had more than 1 critical flaw, so that their results have low and critically low confidence, respectively. Failure to analyze the conflict of interest of authors of primary studies included in review and lack of list of excluded studies with justification were the most common critical flaw. Regression analysis demonstrated that studies with funding and studies published in recent years were significantly associated with higher methodological quality. Conclusion: Despite improvement in methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery in current decade, a substantial proportion continue to show critical flaws. With increasing number of review articles in spine surgery, stringent measures must be taken to adhere to methodological quality by following PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines to attain higher standards of evidence in published literature.


Blood ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 108 (11) ◽  
pp. 3330-3330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josiah N. Orina ◽  
Christopher R. Flowers

Abstract Background: Current guidelines offer numerous options for initiating therapy in patients with untreated, advanced stage follicular lymphoma (FL). Selecting among these options that include watchful waiting, single-agent and combination chemotherapy, monoclonal antibodies, and radioimmunotherapy, remains challenging. Recent data suggest that chemotherapy combined with a monoclonal antibody may alter patterns of relapse and overall survival for pts with FL (Fisher, Blood 2004). While rituximab (R) chemotherapy combinations have become commonly used for untreated pts with FL, to date, the optimal first-line therapy remains undefined. To address this issue, we updated a systematic literature review and performed a meta-analysis of first-line therapy for untreated FL that examined the effect of various chemotherapy regimens combined with R on response rates and survival in patients with untreated FL. Methods: The comprehensive systematic review included searches the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2003), MEDLINE (1/1996–6/2006), EMBASE (1/1980–7/2006), American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting abstracts (2002–2005), and American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting abstracts (1995–2006). Each database was searched using combinations of the term follicular lymphoma and the terms for medications and treatment regimens. Inclusion criteria for studies were as follows: 1) Inclusion of patients with untreated stage III/IV FL grades 1, 2, or 3; 2) Intervention with chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy, radioimmunotherapy, or watchful waiting; 3) Reporting in English of the following treatment outcome measures specifically for patients with FL: CR/CR-unconfirmed, overall response rate (OR), and at least one form of survival data. Abstracts subsequently published as papers were excluded. Extracted data included pre-treatment disease status, treatment regimen, median follow-up time, progression free survival, overall survival, CR and OR. The following treatment strategies from peer-review publications were analyzed: single agent R, R-CVP, R-CHOP, and fludarabine-combinations with R (R-Fcom). In meta-analyses of selected studies, we utilized the Mantel-Haenszel (fixed effects model) and DerSimonain and Laird (random effects) methods to calculate the risk difference comparing treatment regimens’ CR/CRu to the spontaneous CR in patients undergoing watchful waiting (4.6%; Ardeshna et al. Lancet, 2003). Results: In total, over 3135 abstracts were reviewed to identify 11 studies meeting the inclusion criteria for this analysis. These studies included data from 3144 patients. Only one study presenting CR data for R-CVP (36%, 95% confidence interval: 28%–44%) met inclusion criteria. The meta-analyses estimated the CR rate associated with single-agent R to be 30% (95% CI: 20%–40%), R-CHOP to be 62% (30%–94%), and R-Fcom to be 85% (76%–94%) (random effects; see Figure). Conclusions: R-CHOP and R-fludarabine combinations appear to produce the highest CR rates for untreated pts with FL. Meta-analysis can aid clinicians in therapeutic decision making as they weight the risks and benefits of various regimens for newly diagnosed pts. Figure Figure


Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 3655-3655 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Kasenda ◽  
Andrés J.M. Ferreri ◽  
Emerenziana Maturano ◽  
Jacoline J.E.C. Bromberg ◽  
Herve Ghesquieres ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 3655 Background Primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) is an aggressive lymphoma with devastating prognosis. High-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) in combination with HD-cytarabine builds the backbone of current treatments. Elderly patients constitute 45% of cases, exhibit poor outcome and frequent iatrogenic toxicity. However, research efforts to optimize therapy in this subgroup have been neglected. On this background, we conducted a systematic review (SR) and individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) to provide comprehensive evidence-based management strategy for elderly patients with PCNSL. Patients and Methods SR: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE without language restriction. Eligibility criteria were prospective/retrospective observational studies or randomized trials (RCT) (all N>=10) that exclusively focused on first-line therapy/outcomes in immunocompetent PCNSL patients ≥60 years. Eligible studies were evaluated for methodological quality and reporting of the following baseline characteristics: Age, performance status (PS), involvement of deep brain structures (IDB), serum LDH at baseline, cerebro-spinal fluid (CSF) protein concentration elevation, neurotoxicity (as reported), specific co-morbidity indices, and functional status. For the IPDMA, investigators of eligible studies were asked to provide individual patient data. Minimal eligibility criteria: Age at baseline, details about first-line therapy, and follow-up information. If no data were available, studies were included in the SR, but not in the IPDMA. To maximize statistical power and generalizability, published/unpublished data from other international collaborators were included. Impact of different first-line treatments on overall survival (OS) was investigated using time dependent mixed effects multivariable Cox regression models (age and PS as fixed effects, study/database as random effect). Results SR: We identified 13 eligible studies including 583 patients in total, median age 68–76, published from 1996–2011. Design of studies: prospective (3 multicenter [1 RCT]; 2 single center), retrospective (4 multicenter and single-center, respectively). Accrual of the RCT was recently finished, but publication is pending. From published studies, information about age and therapy was given throughout, for clinical performance in 77%, for LDH and CSF protein in 15%, and IDB in 38%. Functional status was reported in only one study. From the identified 13 studies, 261 individual patient data were available for our IPDMA and pooled with 408 patients from other databases; altogether 669 patients diagnosed from 1977–2011. Preliminary results IPDMA: 50% were male, median age 68 (60–70 [N=431], 70–80 [N=211], >80 [N=22]); median KPS was 60% (10–100%). Therapy regimens widely varied. Overall response to first-line treatment was 65% (45% CR, 19% PR). After a median follow-up of 23 months (1–171), 44% were still alive, with a 3-year OS of 32% [95%CI, 29–37%]. Grouping by time of diagnosis revealed improvement for patients diagnosed after 1997 (N=462) (P<0.001). In multivariate analysis, MTX-based poly-chemotherapy (CT) (N=474) was associated with improved OS (Hazard ratio [HR] 0.69, 95% CI 0.52–0.91) compared to non-MTX regimens (N=195); this was consistent among patients who received consolidating WBRT (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01–0.66) and those who did not (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.23–0.89). In patients who received any MTX-based poly-CT, addition of CHOP-like components (N=90) was not associated with improved OS (HR 0.98, 95% 0.65–1.48). Although any WBRT showed an overall trend for superior OS, it was associated with a 4-fold risk increase for neurotoxicity (Odds Ratio 4.21, 95% CI 2.23–8.21). Further results of treatment patterns and explorative comparisons will be presented at the meeting. Conclusion This international meta-analysis revealed widely varying treatment approaches and demonstrates that prognosis for elderly PCNSL patients is still poor. However, improvement over the last decades was observed. MTX-based poly-CT was associated with better outcome compared to non-MTX containing approaches. The addition of CHOP-like regimens to HD-MTX did not improve outcome. WBRT was associated with better outcome, but also clearly increased risk of neurotoxicity. Prospective trials designed ad hoc for elderly PCNSL patients are promptly needed. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maya B Mathur ◽  
Tyler VanderWeele

Meta-analyses contribute critically to cumulative science, but they can produce misleading conclusions if their constituent primary studies are biased, for example by unmeasured confounding in nonrandomized studies. We provide practical guidance on how meta-analysts can address confounding and other biases that affect studies' internal validity, focusing primarily on sensitivity analyses that help quantify how biased the meta-analysis estimates might be. We review a number of sensitivity analysis methods to do so, especially recent developments that are straightforward to implement and interpret and that use somewhat less stringent statistical assumptions than earlier methods. We give recommendations for how these methods could be applied in practice and illustrate using a previously published meta-analysis. Sensitivity analyses can provide informative quantitative summaries of evidence strength, and we suggest reporting them routinely in meta-analyses of potentially biased studies. This recommendation in no way diminishes the importance of defining study eligibility criteria that reduce bias and of characterizing studies’ risks of bias qualitatively.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document