Autologous growth factor injections in chronic tendinopathy: a systematic review

ObjectivesDespite remarkable advances in the treatment of oesophageal cancer (OC), the role of antiepidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) agents in treating OC remains controversial. Herein, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to elucidate the efficacy and safety of anti-EGFR agents in patients with OC.DesignMeta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) identified by searching the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, Chinese Biology Medicine, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform databases from inception to December 2019. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.SettingRCTs from any country and healthcare setting.ParticipantsPatients with OC.InterventionsCombination therapy with anti-EGFR agents and conventional treatments versus conventional treatments alone in patients with OC.Primary and secondary outcome measuresOverall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were primary outcome measures, and objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) and treatment toxicities were secondary outcome measures.ResultsIn total, 25 RCTs comprising 3406 patients with OC were included. Overall, anti-EGFR treatment significantly improved the OS (HR: 0.81, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.89, p<0.00001), ORR (relative risk (RR): 1.33, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.52, p<0.0001) and DCR (RR: 1.22, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.34, p<0.0001) but not PFS (HR: 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.08, p=0.26). Anti-EGFR treatment was significantly associated with higher incidences of myelosuppression, diarrhoea, acne-like rash and hypomagnesaemia.ConclusionsOverall, anti-EGFR agents have positive effects on OS, the ORR and DCR in OC. However, considering the high incidence of adverse effects, such as myelosuppression, diarrhoea, acne-like rashes and hypomagnesaemia, careful monitoring of patients with OC is recommended during anti-EGFR treatment.Trial registration numberCRD42020169230.

Download Full-text

Effects of raloxifene administration on serum levels of insulin-like growth factor-1 and insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 3 levels: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Growth Hormone & IGF Research ◽

10.1016/j.ghir.2021.101421 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 101421

Author(s):

Yan Sun ◽

Ying Xiong ◽

Yong Liang Meng ◽

Heitor O. Santos ◽

Felipe L. Athayde ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Growth Factor ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Binding Protein ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Serum Levels ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Insulin Like Growth Factor ◽

Factor Binding ◽

Randomized Controlled

Download Full-text

Trends in insulin-like growth factor-1 levels after bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

International Journal of Obesity ◽

10.1038/s41366-021-01051-6 ◽

2022 ◽

Author(s):

Mohammad Hassan Sohouli ◽

Mansoureh Baniasadi ◽

Raheleh Nabavizadeh ◽

Elma Izze da Silva Magalhãesd ◽

Heitor O. Santos ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Bariatric Surgery ◽

Growth Factor ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Insulin Like Growth Factor

Download Full-text

Comparative effectiveness and harms of intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor agents for three retinal conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

British Journal of Ophthalmology ◽

10.1136/bjophthalmol-2018-312691 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 103 (4) ◽

pp. 442-451 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Allison Low ◽

Ambar Faridi ◽

Kavita V Bhavsar ◽

Glenn C Cockerham ◽

Michele Freeman ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Visual Acuity ◽

Growth Factor ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Diabetic Macular Oedema ◽

Age Related Macular Degeneration ◽

Endothelial Growth Factor

Intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents are widely used to treat ocular conditions but the benefits and harms of these treatments are uncertain. We conducted a systematic review to compare the effects of aflibercept, bevacizumab and ranibizumab on best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) changes, quality of life and ocular or systemic adverse events in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (NVAMD), diabetic macular oedema (DME) and central or branch retinal vein occlusion (RVO). We searched published and unpublished literature sources to February 2017 for randomised controlled trials and cohort or modelling studies reporting comparative costs in the USA. Two reviewers extracted data and graded the strength of the evidence using established methods. Of 17 included trials, none reported a clinically important difference (≥ 5 letters) in visual acuity gains between agents. Nine trials provide high-strength evidence of no difference between bevacizumab and ranibizumab for NVAMD. Three trials provide moderate-strength evidence of no difference between bevacizumab and ranibizumab for DME. There was low-strength evidence of similar effects between aflibercept and ranibizumab for NVAMD, aflibercept and bevacizumab for RVO and all three agents for DME. There was insufficient evidence to compare bevacizumab and ranibizumab for RVO. Rates of ocular adverse events were low, and systemic harms were generally similar between groups, although 1 DME trial reported more arterial thrombotic events with ranibizumab versus aflibercept. Overall, no agent had a clear advantage over another for effectiveness or safety. Aflibercept and ranibizumab were significantly less cost-effective than repackaged bevacizumab in two trials. Systematic review registration number: CRD42016034076.

Download Full-text