scholarly journals Deutetrabenazine for tardive dyskinesia: A systematic review of the efficacy and safety profile for this newly approved novel medication-What is the number needed to treat, number needed to harm and likelihood to be helped or harmed?

2017 ◽  
Vol 71 (11) ◽  
pp. e13030 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie Citrome
2020 ◽  
Vol 76 (12) ◽  
pp. 1639-1651
Author(s):  
John P. Thomas ◽  
Yoon K. Loke ◽  
Leo Alexandre

Abstract Purpose A growing body of preclinical and observational research suggests that statins have potential as a therapeutic strategy in patients with cancer. This systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with solid tumours aimed to determine the efficacy of statin therapy on mortality outcomes, their safety profile and the risk of bias of included studies. Methods Full-text articles comparing statin therapy versus control in solid tumours and reporting mortality outcomes were identified from Medline and Embase from conception to February 2020. A systematic review with qualitative (primarily) and quantitative synthesis was conducted. This systematic review was prospectively registered (Prospero registration CRD42018116364). Results Eleven trials of 2165 patients were included. Primary tumour sites investigated included lung, colorectal, gastro-oesophageal, pancreatic and liver. Most trials recruited patients with advanced malignancy and used sub-maximal statin doses for relatively short durations. Aside from one trial which demonstrated benefit with allocation to pravastatin 40 mg in hepatocellular carcinoma, the remaining ten trials did not demonstrate efficacy with statins. The pooled hazard ratio for all-cause mortality with allocation to pravastatin in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in two trials was 0.69 (95% confidence interval CI 0.30–1.61). Study estimates were imprecise. There were no clinically important differences in statin-related adverse events between groups. Overall, included trials were deemed low risk of bias. Conclusion The trial evidence is not sufficiently robust to confirm or refute the efficacy and safety of statins in patients with solid malignant tumours. Study and patient characteristics may explain this uncertainty. The potential role of high-dose statins in adjuvant settings deserves further research.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14113-e14113
Author(s):  
Jianchun Duan ◽  
Longgang Cui ◽  
Guoqiang Wang ◽  
Zhengyi Zhao ◽  
Shiqing Chen ◽  
...  

e14113 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) that target programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and its ligand (PD-L1) have led to a paradigm shift in cancer treatment, while whether PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors deliver different clinical outcomes remains obscure. Here we carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety profile of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors in pan-cancer patients. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane library, and Embase from January 2000 to December 2018 for randomized controlled trials that compared PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors with standard treatment in patients with solid tumors. We also reviewed abstracts and presentations from all major conference proceedings. Retrospective studies and trials that compared anti-PD-1/PD-L1 with other immunotherapies were excluded. The primary outcome was the difference in overall survival (OS). Studies were stratified into comparison groups upon studies mirrored with trial design and patient characteristics. Effect size in each comparison group was pooled first, the difference in overall survival was estimated, and the overall effect sizes was pooled using a random-effects model. Results: A total of 3864 publications were retrieved through initial literature search, 17 randomized controlled trials involving 9549 patients with solid tumors were included for this meta-analysis. PD-1 inhibitors exhibited significantly improved OS over PD-L1 inhibitors either in overall population (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.64-0.87), as monotherapy (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65-0.96), or combination with chemotherapy (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53-0.82). PD-1 inhibitors also showed improved progression free survival (PFS) over PD-L1 inhibitors in overall population (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53-0.94). No significant difference was observed for safety profile between PD-1 inhibitors and PD-L1 inhibitors as monotherapy. PD-1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy have less Grade 3-5 adverse events than PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy (overall RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75-0.93). Sensitivity analysis presented a satisfactory consistency of the overall estimates across these analyses. Conclusions: PD-1 inhibitors exhibited better clinical performance for survival outcome and safety profile over PD-L1 inhibitors. Future studies and explorations of the underlying mechanisms are needed for the further optimization of treatment strategies in clinical practice.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document