Maintenance Therapies for Multiple Myeloma (MM): A Network Meta-Analysis

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 236-236
Author(s):  
Helen Mahony ◽  
Ambuj Kumar ◽  
Rahul Mhaskar ◽  
Branko Miladinovic ◽  
Keith Wheatley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Novel Agents ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
American Society ◽  
Novel Agent

Abstract Abstract 236 Background: There is little consensus on which maintenance therapy clinicians should choose for their patients. Since 1999, the three novel agents of bortezomib, lenalidomide, and thalidomide have been approved for use among patients with MM. These agents have been increasingly used as maintenance therapy. To date, only two randomized controlled trials of maintenance therapy have examined the efficacy of these novel agents head-to-head. Here, we conduct a network meta-analysis of bortezomib, lenalidomide, and thalidomide to determine which of these novel agents could potentially increase overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Methods: A comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE (PubMed), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and meetings abstracts from American Society of Hematology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society for Medical Oncology and European Hematology Association was undertaken to identify all phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of maintenance therapy published until July 2012. We applied the Bayesian mixed treatment comparison (MTC) method under the random-effects model. The indirect comparisons were constructed from trials that have one treatment in common. For each included RCT, we calculated the hazard ratio (HR) and its corresponding standard error and used this to calculate the indirect estimates of HR and corresponding credible intervals (CrI). We also ranked the treatments according to the probability of best treatment and calculated the surface underneath the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). All analyses were conducted in WinBUGS 1.4.3 and Stata 11.2. Results: The network, number of trials for each comparison, and number of patients enrolled is shown in Figure 1. The network for OS was based on 12 RCTs enrolling 5542 patients and the network for PFS was constructed from 13 RCTs and 5784 patients. The MTC networks were consistent for both OS and PFS. For both OS and PFS, two comparisons were produced (Figure 2). For OS, the analysis showed that none of the treatments were superior. For PFS, lenalidomide was superior to thalidomide (HR = 0.58, 95% CrI [0.37, 0.94]). The estimates of SUCRA and rank probabilities (Figure 3) suggested that for OS bortezomib was best followed by lenalidomide and thalidomide. For PFS, lenalidomide was best followed by bortezomib and thalidomide. Conclusion: Using the MTC method, we found no evidence that any of the novel agents are superior to one another in terms of OS. Lenalidomide was the only novel agent which was superior to another active therapy (thalidomide). While these results provide preliminary evidence to which novel agent may be more beneficial as maintenance therapy, definitive conclusions cannot be reached until large, well designed RCTs evaluating these therapies head-to-head are conducted. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Maintenance Therapies for Multiple Myeloma (MM): A Direct Meta-Analysis

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 4271-4271
Author(s):  
Helen Mahony ◽  
Ambuj Kumar ◽  
Rahul Mhaskar ◽  
Branko Miladinovic ◽  
Keith Wheatley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Novel Agents ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
American Society

Abstract Abstract 4271 Background: The role of various maintenance therapies in the management of MM is unclear and evidence on the efficacy of these regimens is conflicting. In order to provide the totality of available randomized evidence on the role of maintenance therapy in MM, we conduct a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of all RCTs studying maintenance therapy. Here, we report the pooled results of trials which directly examined the novel agents of bortezomib, lenalidomide, or thalidomide and reported the outcomes of overall survival (OS) and/or progression-free survival (PFS). Methods: A comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE (PubMed), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and meetings abstracts from American Society of Hematology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society for Medical Oncology and European Hematology Association was undertaken to identify all phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of maintenance therapy published until July 2012. We extracted data on OS and PFS. Time to event data were pooled under the random effects model as hazard ratios (HR) and its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using the chi square test and I2statistic. All analyses were done in Review Manager 5.1. Results: Twenty-two RCTs met the inclusion criteria. (Figure 1) However, only data from the following RCTs were able to be pooled for the direct head-to-head comparison: 2 RCTs of bortezomib maintenance therapy enrolling 792 patients, 5 RCTs of lenalidomide maintenance therapy enrolling 1776 patients, 11 RCTs of thalidomide maintenance therapy enrolling 3952 patients. The pooled HR and 95% CI, number of RCTs, and number of patients for each comparison are presented in Figure 2. Only two trials compared the novel agents of bortezomib and thalidomide head-to-head. There was no significant different in terms of PFS. For the novel agent of lenalidomide, there was no significant difference is OS compared to placebo. The pooled PFS was in favor of lenalidomide maintenance compared to placebo. For thalidomide, OS was significantly in favor of the intervention when compared to placebo or prednisone/dexamethasone. There was no significant difference in OS between thalidomide maintenance when compared to interferon control. For the outcome of PFS, the pooled results favored thalidomide when compared to prednisone/dexamethasone or interferon control. There was no significant difference between thalidomide and placebo. Conclusion: To date, the largest number of trials has been among thalidomide as maintenance therapy. In our meta-analysis, thalidomide is the only agent which improves survival compared to no treatment. Other novel agents have been evaluated in a smaller number of trials and current data does not allow for firm conclusions that any agent is superior to the other. An indirect, network meta-analysis is called for to provide additional insights regarding comparative efficacy of the novel agents as the maintenance treatment for MM. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Efficacy Of Novel Agents As Maintenance Therapy For Multiple Myeloma: A Direct and Network Meta-Analysis

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 1945-1945
Author(s):  
Tea Reljic ◽  
Ambuj Kumar ◽  
Helen Mahoney ◽  
Branko Miladinovic ◽  
Mohamed A Kharfan-Dabaja ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Novel Agents ◽  
Cumulative Probability ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Mixed Treatment ◽  
American Society

Abstract Background Multiple myeloma (MM) accounts for 10% of all hematological malignancies. While MM remains incurable, several life-extending treatments are available including maintenance treatments. The goal of maintenance therapy is to modulate residual MM after an initial response, thereby prolonging progression-free and overall survival by adding additional therapy following induction treatment. The role of maintenance therapies in the management of multiple myeloma is unclear and evidence on efficacy of novel regimens (e.g. bortezomib, lenalidomide, or thalidomide) remains conflicting. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of trials to assess the efficacy of novel agents used as maintenance therapy in management of multiple myeloma. Methods A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (PubMed), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and meeting abstracts from American Society of Hematology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society for Medical Oncology and European Hematology Association was conducted to identify all phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of novel agents used as maintenance therapy for multiple myeloma published until May 2013. We extracted data on overall and progression-free survival (OS, PFS). Data were pooled using direct and network meta-analysis. Direct comparisons within trials were combined with indirect evidence from other trials using the Bayesian mixed treatment comparison method under the random-effects model. Indirect comparisons were constructed from trials which have one treatment in common. Results Of 2678 identified references, 23 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 12 studies (4832 patients) contributed data to the network. The network of direct comparisons for all included studies for the outcome of PFS is shown in figure 1A. The results for meta-analysis of novel agents for PFS is shown in figure 1B. The combination of lenalidomide with prednisone was superior to no treatment as well as prednisone alone in addition to lenalidomide as single agent compared with no treatment. Furthermore, combination bortezomib plus thalidomide and dexamethasone plus lenalidomide was superior to no treatment. None of the novel agents except thalidomide plus prednisone compared with prednisone alone showed a significant improvement in OS and therefore an indirect comparison for OS was not conducted. The results of mixed treatment comparisons are illustrated in figure 1C which shows non-superiority of any novel agent. The cumulative probability rank for PFS is shown in Figure 1D. The area under the cumulative probability rank curve was highest for bortezomib+prednisone (0.73), followed by lenalidomide and lenalidomide+dexamethasone (both 0.71). Conclusion This analysis is an important addition to prior direct comparisons of novel agents for maintenance in multiple myeloma. Looking at PFS, use of bortezomib+prednisone, lenalidomide and lenalidomide+dexamethasone appears to be superior to other agents. However, provided the small number of trials between each comparison, current data do not allow for strong conclusions on superiority of any one treatment and direct comparison in a RCT is warranted for more conclusive results. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

scholarly journals Anti-Angiogenesis Maintenance Therapy in Newly Diagnosed and Relapsed Ovarian Cancer: A Meta-analysis of Phase III Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yizi Wang ◽  
Shitai Zhang ◽  
Zixuan Song ◽  
Ling Ouyang ◽  
Yan Li
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Fatal Adverse Events

Aim: Anti-angiogenesis agents have been added as maintenance therapy in ovarian cancer over the past decade. The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the efficacy of anti-angiogenesis therapy in newly diagnosed and relapsed ovarian cancer.Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for all phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the efficacy and toxicity of anti-angiogenesis agents in ovarian cancer. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were used to evaluate the effectiveness of anti-angiogenesis therapy in ovarian cancer.Results: A total of 6097 patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer from 5 phase III RCTs and 2943 patients with relapsed ovarian cancer from 6 phase III RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that anti-angiogenesis maintenance therapy significantly improved PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76–0.93; p = 0.001), but not OS (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.91–1.05; p = 0.49) compared with placebo in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer. In patients with relapsed ovarian cancer, the pooled results showed a significant improvement on OS (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.82–0.98; p = 0.02) and PFS (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.52–0.72; p < 0.001). The pooled results also showed that the anti-angiogenesis agents were associated with an increase in the occurrence of severe hypertension, neutropenia, diarrhea, thrombocytopenia, headache, and bleeding in ovarian cancer. However, infrequent fatal adverse events occurred in the anti-angiogenesis groups.Conclusions: Study results suggest that anti-angiogenesis agents were an effective therapy for newly diagnosed and relapsed ovarian cancer, especially for relapsed ovarian cancer. Anti-angiogenesis agents may be associated with some severe but not fatal adverse events.Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42021283647

scholarly journals Convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19 patients: a protocol of a prospective meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lajos Szakó ◽  
Nelli Farkas ◽  
Szabolcs Kiss ◽  
Szilárd Váncsa ◽  
Noémi Zádori ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Organ Failure ◽  
Weighted Mean Difference ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Plasma Therapy ◽  
Monthly Basis ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infection with possible serious consequences. The plasma of recovered patients might serve as treatment, which we aim to assess in the form of a prospective meta-analysis focusing on mortality, multi-organ failure, duration of intensive care unit stay, and adverse events. Methods A systematic search was conducted to find relevant registered randomized controlled trials in five trial registries. A comprehensive search will be done continuously on a monthly basis in MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science to find the results of previously registered randomized controlled trials. The selection will be done by two independent authors. Data extraction will be carried out by two other independent reviewers. Disagreements will be resolved by a third investigator. An update of the search of the registries and the first search of the databases will be done on the 21st of July. Data synthesis will be performed following the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration. In the case of dichotomous outcomes (mortality and organ failure), we will calculate pooled risk ratios with a 95% confidence interval (CI) from two-by-two tables (treatment Y/N, outcome Y/N). Data from models with multivariate adjustment (hazard ratios, odds ratio, risk ratio) will be preferred for the analysis. P less than 0.05 will be considered statistically significant. In the case of ICU stay, weighted mean difference with a 95% confidence interval will be calculated. Heterogeneity will be tested with I2, and χ2 tests. Meta-analysis will be performed if at least 3 studies report on the same outcome and population. Discussion Convalescent plasma therapy is a considerable alternative in COVID-19, which we aim to investigate in a prospective meta-analysis.

scholarly journals Network Meta-Analysis of Different Clinical Commonly Used Drugs for the Treatment of Hypertrophic Scar and Keloid

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sha Yang ◽  
Yujia J. Luo ◽  
Cong Luo
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Topical Treatment ◽  
Hypertrophic Scar ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Silicone Gels

Background: There is no uniform treatment for pathological scars, including keloids and hypertrophic scars, in clinic currently. Previously, multiple randomized controlled trials have examined the clinical efficacy of different treatments. Nonetheless, the results are inconsistent, and many treatments have not been directly compared. This makes it difficult to conclude which approach is more favorable, in terms of efficacy and safety, for the treatment of pathological scarring. This study aimed at evaluating the efficacy of different injection and topical treatment strategies for hypertrophic scar and keloid.Methods: Relevant literature from PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CCRCT), and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO-ICTRP) were searched, from database inception through November 2020. Randomized clinical trials evaluating different treatment strategies of pathological scars, including triamcinolone acetonide (TAC), verapamil (VER), 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), botulinum toxin A (BTA), bleomycin (BLM), and silicone gels were included in the study.Results: The network meta-analysis included a total of 2,009 patients from 29 studies. A network meta-analysis of injection and topical treatment strategies showed that the efficacy of TAC combined with BTA was best in the treatment of pathological scars. Combination therapies of TAC with 5-FU and TAC with BTA significantly improved the clinical efficiency. However, there was no statistically significant difference between other treatment strategies. The order of efficacy predicted by the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve was as follows: TAC+BTA (82.2%) > TAC+5-FU (69.8%) > BTA (67.3%) > 5-FU+silicone (59.4%) > TAC+silicone (58.3%) > 5-FU (49.8%) > BLM (42.0%) > TAC (26.7%) > VER (26.2%) > silicone (18.3%). There was no publication bias revealed based on the funnel diagram.Conclusion: This study recommends intralesional injection of TAC-BTA and TAC-5-FU combined therapies. But for patients who cannot tolerate the side effects, the use of silicone gels in combination with TAC is recommended. However, these conclusions need to be further confirmed by more randomized controlled trials.

scholarly journals The efficacy and safety of intrathecal bupivacaine alone versus bupivacaine combined with magnesium sulfate in adults using spinal anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mi-Zhou Wang ◽  
Rui Dong ◽  
Li-Na Jia ◽  
Deng-Bin Ai ◽  
Jian-Hua Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Magnesium Sulfate ◽  
Motor Block ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sensory Block ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Rescue Analgesia ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Background: Several studies have investigated the effects of intrathecal magnesium sulfate as an adjuvant for bupivacaine; however, their conclusions are inconsistent. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a meta-analysis on this topic.Methods We searched Pubmed, EMBASE (OvidSP) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of intrathecal bupivacaine combined with magnesium sulfate versus bupivacaine alone in adults using spinal anesthesia.Results Eighteen studies that met our inclusion criteria were included in our analysis. We found that the addition of intrathecal magnesium sulfate to bupivacaine provided a longer duration of analgesia (SMD 0.99; 95% CI [0.45, 1.52], P = 0.0003, I2 = 93%), prolonged the duration of sensory block (MD=106.69; 95% CI, 60.93-152.45; P<0.00001), delayed the onset of sensory block (SMD 1.20; 95% CI [0.65, 1.75], P =<0.0001, I2 = 91%) and motor block (SMD 1.46; 95% CI [0.23, 2.69], P =0.02, I2 = 96%), decreased the requirement for rescue analgesia (SMD -0.81; 95% CI [-1.06, -0.56], P < 0.00001, I2 = 11%). For duration of motor block, and incidence of postoperative adverse events (such as nausea and vomiting, hypotension, bradycardia, pruritus, shivering and neurological deficit), no statistically differences were observed between the 2 groups.Conclusions Our meta-analysis demonstrated that intrathecal magnesium sulfate combined with bupivacaine prolongs the dusration of analgesia, without an impact on the adverse events. However, the quality of evidence was very low when using GRADE to assess it. Given adverse effects before use, more high-quality trials with large samples are required before magnesium sulfate is routinely used as a intrathecal adjunct.

scholarly journals The Effectiveness of Tocilizumab in the Treatment of COVID-19 in Adults: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chun Chen ◽  
ZeMei Zhou ◽  
Jing Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Hospital Discharge ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Composite Outcome ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Serious Infection ◽  
And Control

Abstract Background: Since December 2019, COVID-19 has spread to the world which leads to a global health threat. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of tocilizumab on COVID-19 patients.Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and WHO international Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) from their inception to March 10, 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on tocilizumab supplementation in adults with COVID-19 disease. The primary outcomes were mortality at 28-30 day and 60-day, incidence of mechanical ventilation (MV), composite outcome of death or MV, time to hospital discharge, and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. A random-effects meta-analysis model was used to pool studies. Results: Eleven studies with a total of 6,579 patients were included in our meta-analysis, of which 3,406 and 3,173 were respectively assigned to the tocilizumab and control groups. Tocilizumab could significantly reduce 28-30 day mortality (RR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.80-0.99, P = 0.04), incidence of MV (RR= 0.79, 95% CI 0.71-0.89, P = 0.0001), composition outcome of MV or death (RR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.72-0.90, P = 0.0002), time to hospital discharge (HR = 1.30, 95% CI 1.16-1.45, P ＜ 0.00001 ), ICU admissions (RR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.47-0.88, P = 0.006), serious infection (RR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.40-0.94, P = 0.02) and events of serious adverse advents (RR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.47-0.86, P = 0.004). There was no significant difference between tocilizumab and control groups in 60-day mortality and adverse events (AEs).Conclusions: Tocilizumab could reduce the short-term mortality, incidence of MV, composite outcome of death or MV, ICU admissions, serious infection and events of serious adverse advents, and shorten the time to hospital discharge in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The optimal effective dose needs to be confirmed by further studies.

scholarly journals Comparative Efficacy of Pharmacological and Nonpharmacological Interventions for Acne Vulgaris: A Network Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qingyang Shi ◽  
Lizi Tan ◽  
Zhe Chen ◽  
Long Ge ◽  
Xiaoyan Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Physical Symptoms ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Comparative Efficacy ◽  
Inflammatory Lesions ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Acne has several effects on physical symptoms, but the main impacts are on the quality of life, which can be improved by treatment. There are several acne treatments but less evidence comparing their relative efficacy. Thus, we assessed the comparative efficacy of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for acne. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to April 2019, to include randomized controlled trials for acne that compared topical antibiotics (TA), benzoyl peroxide (BPO), topical retinoids (TR), oral antibiotics (OA), lasers, light devices including LED device (LED), photodynamic therapy (PDT), and intense pulsed light, chemical peels (CP), miscellaneous therapies or complementary and alternative medicine (MTCAM), or their combinations. We performed Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects for all treatments compared with placebo and each other. Mean differences (MDs) of lesions count and risk ratios of adverse events with their 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated, and all interventions were ranked by the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) values. Additional frequentist additive network meta-analysis was performed to detect the robustness of results and potential interaction effects. Sensitivity analyses were carried out with different priors, and metaregression was to adjust for nine potential effect modifiers. In the result, seventy-three randomized controlled trials (27,745 patients with mild to moderate acne), comparing 30 grouped intervention categories, were included with low to moderate risk of bias. For adverse effects, OA had more risk in combination treatment with others. For noninflammatory lesions reduction, seventeen interventions had significant differences comparing with placebo and three interventions (TR+BPO: MD = −21.89, 95%CrI [−28.97, −14.76]; TR+BPO+MTCAM: −22.48 [−34.13, −10.70]; TA+BPO+CP: −20.63 [−33.97, −7.13]) were superior to others with 94, 94, and 91% SUCRA values, respectively. For inflammatory lesions reduction, nineteen interventions were significantly better than placebo, and three interventions (TR+BPO: MD = −12.13, 95%CrI [−18.41, −5.80]; TR+BPO+MTCAM: −13.21 [−.39, −3.04]; LED: −11.30 [−18.34, −4.42]) were superior to others (SUCRA: 81, 81, and 77%, respectively). In summary of noninflammatory and inflammatory lesions results, TR+BPO and TA+BPO were the best options compared to others. The frequentist model showed similar results as above. In summary, current evidence supports the suggestion that TR+BPO and TA+BPO are the best options for mild to moderate acne. LED is another option for inflammatory lesions when drug resistance occurs. All the combinations involved with OA showed more risk of adverse events than others. However, the evidence of this study should be cautiously used due to the limitations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document