scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of linezolid compared with other treatments for skin and soft tissue infections: a meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yan Li ◽  
Wei Xu
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Risk Ratio ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Soft Tissue Infections ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Cure Rates ◽  
Microbiological Cure

Linezolid with other treatments for skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) has been evaluated in several studies. However, the conclusions remain controversial. By searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate linezolid and other treatments for skin and soft tissue infections. The study was summarized, and the risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Eleven related articles were included in the meta-analysis. Our results revealed that linezolid was associated with a significantly better clinical (RR = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.02–1.16, Pheterogeneity = 0.326, I2 = 13.0%) and microbiological cure rates (RR = 1.08, 95% CI: 1.01–1.16, Pheterogeneity = 0.089, I2 = 41.7%) when comparing with vancomycin. There was no significant difference in the incidence of anemia, nausea, and mortality; however, the incidence of vomiting, diarrhea, and thrombocytopenia in patients treated with linezolid is significantly higher than that with other treatments. Our study confirmed that linezolid seems to be more effective than vancomycin for treating people with SSTIs. It is recommended that linezolid be monitored for thrombocytopenia, vomiting, and diarrhea. Further studies with larger dataset and well-designed models are required to validate our findings.

scholarly journals Clinical efficacy on glycemic control and safety of mesenchymal stem cells in patients with diabetes mellitus: Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCT data

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. e0247662
Author(s):  
Jingjing He ◽  
Desheng Kong ◽  
Zhifen Yang ◽  
Ruiyun Guo ◽  
Asiamah Ernest Amponsah ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Stem Cells ◽  
Mesenchymal Stem Cells ◽  
Treatment Group ◽  
Random Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Significant Difference

Background Diabetes mellitus as a chronic metabolic disease is threatening human health seriously. Although numerous clinical trials have been registered for the treatment of diabetes with stem cells, no articles have been published to summarize the efficacy and safety of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods and findings The aim of this study was to systematically review the evidence from RCTs and, where possible, conduct meta-analyses to provide a reliable numerical summary and the most comprehensive assessment of therapeutic efficacy and safety with MSCs in diabetes. PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid, the Cochrane Library and CNKI were searched. The retrieval time was from establishment of these databases to January 4, 2020. Seven RCTs were eligible for analysis, including 413 participants. Meta-analysis results showed that there were no significant differences in the reduction of fasting plasma glucose (FPG) compared to the baseline [mean difference (MD) = -1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) (-2.26,0.16), P<0.01, I2 = 94%] and the control group [MD = -0.62, 95%CI (-1.46,0.23), P<0.01, I2 = 87%]. The MSCs treatment group showed a significant decrease in hemoglobin (Hb) A1c [random-effects, MD = -1.32, 95%CI (-2.06, -0.57), P<0.01, I2 = 90%] after treatment. Additionally, HbA1c reduced more significantly in MSC treatment group than in control group [random-effects, MD = -0.87, 95%CI (-1.53, -0.22), P<0.01, I2 = 82%] at the end of follow-up. However, as for fasting C-peptide levels, the estimated pooled MD showed that there was no significant increase [MD = -0.07, 95%CI (-0.30, 0.16), P<0.01, I2 = 94%] in MSCs treatment group compared with that in control group. Notably, there was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between MSCs treatment group and control group [relative risk (RR) = 0.98, 95%CI (0.72, 1.32), P = 0.02, I2 = 70%]. The most commonly observed adverse reaction in the MSC treatment group was hypoglycemia (29.95%). Conclusions This meta-analysis revealed MSCs therapy may be an effective and safe intervention in subjects with diabetes. However, due to the limited studies, a number of high-quality as well as large-scale RCTs should be performed to confirm these conclusions.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Sinomenine Preparation for Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Shan-Shan Lin ◽  
Chun-Xiang Liu ◽  
Jun-Hua Zhang ◽  
Hui Wang ◽  
Jing-Bo Zhai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ankylosing Spondylitis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Morning Stiffness ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Objectives. To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of sinomenine preparation (SP) for treating ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Methods. Clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SP for treating AS were systematically identified in six electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP), and Wanfang Databases from the inception up to 31 October 2019. Cochrane’s risk of bias tool was used to assess the methodological quality and Review Manager 5.3 software was used to analyze data. Results. A total of 12 RCTs involving 835 patients were finally included. According to interventions, RCTs were divided into two types. The intervention in 10 RCTs was SP combined with conventional pharmacotherapy (CPT) versus CPT and that in 2 RCTs was SP alone versus CPT. The results of the meta-analysis showed that, compared with CPT alone, SP combined with oral CPT has better improvement in BASDAI (WMD = −1.84, 95% CI [−3.31, −0.37], P=0.01), morning stiffness time (WMD = −13.46, 95% CI [−16.12, −10.79], P<0.00001), the Schober test (WMD = 1.26, 95% CI [0.72, 1.80], P<0.00001), the occipital wall test (WMD = −0.55, 95% CI [−0.96, −0.14], P=0.009), the finger-to-ground distance (WMD = −3.28, 95% CI [−5.64, −0.93], P=0.006), 15 m walking time (WMD = −8.81, 95% CI [−13.42, −4.20], P=0.0002), the C-reactive protein (CRP) (WMD = −1.84, 95% CI [−3.24, −0.45], P=0.01), and the total effective rate (RR = 1.10, 95% CI [1.01, 1.20], P=0.03). Besides, it also showed that oral SP alone may be more effective in improving morning stiffness time (WMD = −31.89, 95% CI [−34.91, −28.87], P<0.00001) compared with CPT alone. However, this study cannot provide evidence that loading the injectable SP based on CPT can significantly increase the efficacy due to the insufficient number of studies included. In terms of adverse events, there was no statistically significant difference between the experimental group and the control group. Conclusions. This study shows that oral SP may be effective and safe in the treatment of AS. Due to the low methodological quality of the included RCTs and the limitations of the meta-analysis, it is still necessary to carry out more multicenter, large-sample, and high-quality RCTs to further verify the conclusions. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018099170), and the review was constructed following the PRISMA guidelines (Annex 1).

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Pyrotinib Versus T-DM1 in HER2+ Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients Pre-Treated With Trastuzumab and a Taxane: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hao Liao ◽  
Wenfa Huang ◽  
Yaxin Liu ◽  
Wendi Pei ◽  
Huiping Li
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Probability Curve ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Grade 3

PurposeTo compare the efficacy and safety between pyrotinib (Pyr) and trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) in pre-treated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients.MethodsA comprehensive literature search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science was performed in August 2020. Randomized clinical trials comparing the efficacy and safety between different anti-HER2 regimens in patients pre-treated with trastuzumab (Tra) and a taxane in metastatic settings (≤second-line treatment) were included. A fixed effects network meta-analysis based on the Bayesian inferential framework was conducted for progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs). Values of surface under cumulative ranking probability curve (SUCRA) were calculated to offer a ranking of all regimens.ResultsTwelve studies with 4,353 subjects were identified. Nine regimens were included into the network: T-DM1, lapatinib-capecitabine (Lap-Cap), Tra-Cap, Cap, neratinib (Ner), pertuzumab (Per)-Tra-Cap, Pyr-Cap, atezolizumab (Ate)-T-DM1, and Ner-Cap. For PFS, Pyr-Cap was more favorable than T-DM1 (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval: 0.77, 0.70–0.86), Lap-Cap (0.64, 0.59–0.69), Tra-Cap (0.63, 0.56–0.70), Cap (0.50, 0.45–0.56), Ner (0.59, 0.51–0.69), Per-Tra-Cap (0.68, 0.59–0.79), and Ner-Cap (0.72, 0.64–0.81). For OS, Pyr-Cap showed further improvement than Lap-Cap (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval: 0.71, 0.52–0.99), Cap (0.68, 0.49–0.96), and Ner (0.65, 0.45–0.94). For ORR, Pyr-Cap was significantly superior than Cap (odds ratio, 95% confidence interval: 7.87, 1.22–56.51). No significant difference was observed in grade ≥3 AEs among all the regimens. Pyr-Cap ranked in the highest in PFS, OS, ORR, and grade ≥3 AEs (SUCRA = 99.4, 89.7, 86.4, and 89.3%).ConclusionsThese results indicate that Pyr may be more effective than T-DM1 in HER2+ MBC patients pre-treated with Tra and a taxane. However, it may be associated with more grade ≥3 AEs.

scholarly journals A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Therapeutic Efficacy and Safety of Alirocumab and Evolocumab on Familial Hypercholesterolemia

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Xiaoyue Ge ◽  
Tiantian Zhu ◽  
Hao Zeng ◽  
Xin Yu ◽  
Juan Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Familial Hypercholesterolemia ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Apolipoprotein A1 ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Apo B ◽  
Significant Difference

Objectives. The aim of this study was to provide the first study to systematically analyze the efficacy and safety of PCSK9-mAbs in the treatment of familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). Methods. A computer was used to search the electronic Cochrane Library, PubMed/MEDLINE, and Embase databases for clinical trials using the following search terms: “AMG 145”, “evolocumab”, “SAR236553/REGN727”, “alirocumab”, “RG7652”, “LY3015014”, “RN316/bococizumab”, “PCSK9”, and “familial hypercholesterolemia” up to November 2020. Study quality was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool, and publication bias was evaluated by a contour-enhanced funnel plot and the Harbord modification of the Egger test. After obtaining the data, a meta-analysis was performed using R software, version 4.0.3. Results. A meta-analysis was performed on 7 clinical trials (926 total patients). The results showed that PCSK9-mAbs reduced the LDL-C level by the greatest margin, WMD −49.14%, 95% CI: −55.81 to −42.47%, on FH versus control groups. PCSK9-mAbs also significantly reduced lipoprotein (a) (Lp (a)), total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), apolipoprotein-B (Apo-B), and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) levels and increased HDL-C and apolipoprotein-A1 (Apo-A1) levels of beneficial lipoproteins. Moreover, no significant difference was found between PCSK9-mAbs treatment and placebo in common adverse events, serious events, and laboratory adverse events. Conclusion. PCSK9-mAbs significantly decreased LDL-C and other lipid levels with satisfactory safety and tolerability in FH treatment.

scholarly journals Activity and Safety of Tegafur, Gimeracil, and Oteracil Potassium for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Ximing Zhang ◽  
Xiumei Tian ◽  
Yuezi Wei ◽  
Hao Deng ◽  
Lichun Ma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Adverse Reactions ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
China National Knowledge Infrastructure ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

In clinical practice, tegafur, gimeracil, and oteracil potassium (S-1) therapy is commonly administered to treat nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). However, its efficacy and safety remain controversial in both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of S-1 treatment for NPC. We searched PubMed, Ovid, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, and VIP databases for RCTs of chemotherapy with or without S-1 for NPC, from 2001 to 2020. A meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5.3 and Stata15. Randomized controlled trials published in journals were included irrespective of blinding and language used. Patients were diagnosed with NPC through a clinicopathological examination; patients of all cancer stages and ages were included. Overall, 25 trials and 1858 patients were included. There were significant differences in the complete remission (OR = 2.42, 95% CI (1.88–3.10), P < 0.05 ) and overall response rate (OR = 2.68, 95% CI (2.08–3.45), P < 0.05 ) between the S-1 and non-S-1 groups. However, there was no significant difference in partial remission (OR = 1.10, 95% CI (0.87–1.39), P = 0.42 ) and seven adverse reactions (leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, dermatitis, oral mucositis, and anemia) between the S-1 and non-S-1 groups. Additionally, statistical analyses with six subgroups were performed. S-1 was found to be a satisfactory chemotherapeutic agent combined with radiotherapy, intravenous chemotherapy, or chemoradiotherapy for NPC. As an oral medicine, the adverse reactions of S-1, especially gastrointestinal reactions, can be tolerated by patients, thereby optimizing their quality of life. S-1 may be a better choice for the treatment of NPC. This trial is registered with CRD42019122041.

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Omalizumab in the Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 196-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chenjie Yu ◽  
Kaijian Wang ◽  
Xinyan Cui ◽  
Ling Lu ◽  
Jianfei Dong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Symptom Score ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Life Questionnaire ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Symptom Scores

Background Patients with moderate to severe allergic rhinitis (AR) who are treated according to the current rhinitis management guidelines may be inadequately controlled. These patients are at risk of serious comorbidities, such as asthma and chronic sinusitis. These symptoms, sneezing and an itchy, runny, stuffy nose, may have a negative impact on patients’ daily functioning. Omalizumab is being developed as a new choice for the treatment of AR. We therefore undertook a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in the treatment of AR. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE databases for randomized controlled studies on the treatment of AR with omalizumab. Our evaluation outcomes were symptom scores, medication efficacy, combined symptom and medication scores, and adverse events. We descriptively summarized and quantitatively synthesized original data to evaluate the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in the treatment of AR by using Stata12.0 software for meta-analyses. Results The results of our meta-analysis showed that there were statistically significant differences between the omalizumab group and the control group in the following aspects: daily nasal symptom score (standardized mean difference [SMD] = –0.443, 95% confidence interval [CI]: –0.538 to –0.347, P < .001); daily ocular symptom score (SMD = –0.385, 95% CI: –0.5 to –0.269, P < .001); daily nasal medication symptom scores (SMD = –0.421, 95% CI: –0.591 to –0.251, P < .001); proportion of days of emergency drug use (risk ratio [RR] = 0.488, 95% CI: 0.307 to 0.788, P < .005); rhinoconjunctivitis-specific quality of life questionnaire (SMD = –0.286, 95% CI: –0.418 to –0.154, P < .001); and overall evaluation (RR = 1.435, 95% CI: 1.303–1.582, P < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in safety indicator: adverse events (RR = 1.026, 95% CI: 0.916–1.150, P = .655). Conclusion Omalizumab is effective and relatively safe in patients with AR; omalizumab used in conjunction with special immunotherapy has shown promising results, especially in reducing adverse events.

Efficacy of doxycycline versus azithromycin for the treatment of rectal chlamydia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liang-Fu Chen ◽  
Ting-Cheng Wang ◽  
Fu-Lun Chen ◽  
Shih-Chang Hsu ◽  
Chin-Wang Hsu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Risk Ratio ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Cure Rate ◽  
Chlamydia Trachomatis Infection ◽  
Microbiological Cure

Abstract Background Chlamydia trachomatis infection is the most common sexually transmitted infectious disease and carries a risk of complications. However, the optimal treatment for rectal chlamydial infection remains unclear. Objectives To compare the efficacy of doxycycline and azithromycin for the treatment of rectal chlamydia by undertaking a systematic review and meta-analysis of published data. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and clinicaltrials.gov databases from inception to 7 July 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that compared the efficacy of doxycycline and single-dose azithromycin on rectal chlamydia cure rates. Data were synthesized using a random-effects model, and subgroup analysis was conducted. Results All included studies were conducted in developed countries. Two RCTs and nine observational studies, with a total of 2457 patients, were analysed. Doxycycline had a higher microbiological cure rate than azithromycin (risk ratio = 1.21; 95% CI = 1.15–1.28; P &lt; 0.05). Pooled results from two RCTs also revealed a higher microbiological cure rate for doxycycline than azithromycin (risk ratio = 1.27; 95% CI = 1.20–1.35; P &lt; 0.05). The results remained consistent in subgroups of different study designs, countries and sexes. Conclusions On the basis of our findings, we recommend doxycycline rather than azithromycin as a first-line treatment for rectal chlamydia in developed countries. More RCTs from developing countries are warranted.

Outcomes of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in patients with myelofibrosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7045-7045
Author(s):  
Jan Philipp Bewersdorf ◽  
Amar Sheth ◽  
Shaurey Vetsa ◽  
Alyssa Grimshaw ◽  
Smith Giri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Vocabulary ◽  
Hematopoietic Cell ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Significant Difference

7045 Background: Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (allo-HCT) remains the only potentially curative therapeutic modality for patients with primary or secondary myelofibrosis (MF). However, many patients (pts) are ineligible for allo-HCT and transplant-related mortality can be substantial. Data on the efficacy and safety of allo-HCT are mixed and largely derived from retrospective studies. Methods: To synthesize the available evidence, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis searching Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection from inception to October 11, 2020 for studies on allo-HCT in MF. Databases were searched using a combination of controlled vocabulary and free text terms for relevant studies on the efficacy and safety of allo-HCT in pts with primary and secondary MF. This study protocol has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020188706). Random-effects models were used to pool response rates for the co-primary outcomes of 1-year, 2-year and 5-year overall survival (OS). Results: We identified 4247 studies after duplicate removal. 393 studies were assessed as full-texts for eligibility and 43 studies (38 retrospective, 1 prospective study, 4 phase II clinical trials) with 8739 pts were included in this meta-analysis. Study quality was limited by the absence of randomized clinical trials and retrospective design of most studies. Rates of 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year OS were 66.7% (95% confidence interval: 63.5-69.8%), 64.4% (57.6-70.6%), and 55.0% (51.8-58.3%), respectively. Rates of 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year non-relapse mortality were 25.9% (23.3-28.7%), 29.7% (24.5-35.4%), and 30.5% (25.9-35.5%), respectively. Among evaluable studies, rates of 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year relapse-free survival were 65.3% (56.5-73.1%), 56.2% (41.6-69.8%), and 53.6% (39.9-66.9%), respectively. Adverse events related to all-HCT were manageable with rates of acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease in 44.0% (39.6-48.4%; grade III/IV: 15.2%) and 46.5% of patients (42.2-50.8%; extensive or moderate/severe: 26.1%), respectively. Subgroup analyses did not show any significant difference between conditioning regimen intensity (myeloablative vs reduced-intensity), median patient age, and proportion of DIPSS-intermediate-2/high pts. Conclusions: Given the poor prognosis of patients not receiving transplant and in the absence of curative non-transplant therapies, our results support consideration of allo-HCT for eligible pts with MF. However, additional studies in pre- and post-allo-HCT setting are necessary to enhance patient selection (e.g. by incorporation of molecular markers), to optimize transplant strategies (e.g. peri-transplant ruxolitinib, conditioning regimens, and donor selection), symptom management and decrease non-relapse mortality.

Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Immunotherapy for Local Allergic Rhinitis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
pp. 194589242110505
Author(s):  
Wanting Zhu ◽  
Pei Gao ◽  
Qidi Zhang ◽  
Jianjun Chen
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Subcutaneous Immunotherapy ◽  
Life Questionnaire ◽  
Immunologic Response ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Local Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Significant Difference

Background Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) has been used for treating local allergic rhinitis (LAR) patients. However, the clinical efficacy and safety were still questioned. Objective This study was designed to estimate the efficacy and safety of SCIT for treating LAR patients through meta-analysis. Methods We systemically searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase publications. Randomized, double-blind, clinical trials for the efficacy and safety of Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for LAR were included. A meta-analysis of 4 clinical endpoints (combined symptom and medication scores [CSMS], symptom scores [SS], medication scores [MS] and rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire [RQLQ]) and adverse events (AEs)) was performed after bias and heterogeneity assessments. The immunologic response results were summarized. Results Four RCTs with 134 patients were included. Four studies for analyzing primary outcomes (CSMS, SS, MS) and AEs, three for RQLQ results. The results indicated an important significant difference between SCIT and placebo groups, list as follows: CSMS (SMD = −2.42, 95% CI: −3.60 to −1.25, P < .0001), SS (SMD = −2.08, 95% CI −3.68 to −0.48, P = .01), MS (SMD = −1.43, 95% CI: −2.65 to −0.21, P = 0.02), RQLQ (SMD = −0.70, 95% CI −1.29 to −0.12, P = .02), Local AEs (RR = 4.13, 95% CI 1.08 to 15.77, P = .04). For immunologic response, significantly increased serum sIgG4 levels and improvements of allergen tolerance was observed after SCIT. Conclusions Our meta-analysis suggests that SCIT has a significant effect on improving symptoms and reducing medicine consumption for LAR patients. Larger and multicenter clinical trials are needed to clarify the safety and long-term efficacy.

scholarly journals Rh-endostatin Concomitant with Chemotherapy Versus Single Agent Chemotherapy for Treating Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. 386-397 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhuo Ma ◽  
Lifang Guo ◽  
Xiangli Cui ◽  
He Liu ◽  
Lihong Liu
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Soft Tissue Sarcomas ◽  
Chemotherapeutic Agents ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Large Sample Size ◽  
Proteolytic Fragment ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Bone Sarcomas

Objectives: Endostar (recombinant human endostatin (rh-endostatin)), a 20-kDa proteolytic fragment of collagen XVIII, was approved for the treatment of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Recently, several studies have evaluated the efficacy of rh-endostatin combined with chemotherapy in the treatment of bone and soft tissue sarcomas. Here, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess available evidence. Methods: Pubmed, Embase, Web of Sciences, the Cochrane Library and two Chinese literature databases (CNKI, WanFang) were systematically searched till May 20, 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies which compared the outcomes of rh-endostatin combined with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for treating bone sarcomas or soft tissue sarcomas were included. The primary outcome was overall survival rate (OSR). Secondary outcomes included objectiveremissionrate(ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), disease control rate (DCR), distant metastasis rate (DMR) and adverse effects (AEs). The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated. Data analysis was performed by Revman 5.3 software. Results: 9 studies comprising 839 patients were included. The pooled results indicated that, compared with chemotherapeutic agents alone, rh-endostatin combined group had a significant benefit in 1-year and 2-year OSR. However, there were no difference between 5-year OSR. OR, CBR and DMR were higher in rh-endostatin combined group. No significant difference was observed in the incidence of AEs. Conclusions: Rh-endostatin combined chemotherapeutic agents significantly improved clinical efficacy compared with chemotherapeutic agents alone in treating bone and soft tissue sarcomas. Moreover, combination of rh-endostatin with chemotherapy didn’t increase the incidence of AEs. But more high quality RCTs with  large  sample  size  should  be  done  in  the  future  to confirm the conclusion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document