Abiraterone acetate (AA) or docetaxel (D) in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC): A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 243-243
Author(s):  
Irbaz Bin Riaz ◽  
Abdulaali Almutairi ◽  
Zeeshan Ali ◽  
Abdullah Alhifany ◽  
Sandipan Bhattacharjee ◽  
...  

243 Background: AA and D have been shown in separate trials to increase overall survival in patients with mCSPC compared to Androgen Derivation Therapy (ADT). In the absence of head to head clinical trials and to provide clinical guidance, we performed an indirect comparison of AA and D using network meta-analysis. Methods: We performed a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify relevant clinical trials. Collected data included hazard ratio and confidence interval (CI) for Overall Survival (OS) and number of adverse events in each study arm. Risk for bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted using WinBUGS 1.4.3 software (MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK) to perform an indirect comparison of D and AA. Results: Five clinical trials were included in this analysis. Two trials (LATITUDE, STAMPEDE) compared AA to ADT and three trials (CHAARTED,STAMPEDE, GETUG-AFU 15 study) compared D to ADT. Results from both fixed effect and random effect network meta-analyses for the primary outcome (OS) revealed no statistical significance between AA and D (HR 0.81,95%CI 0.65-1.01; HR 0.81, 95%CI 0.40-1.82) respectively. Comparatively, abiraterone had statistically significant fewer events of anemia (OR 0.14,95%CI 0.08-0.23), neutropenia (OR 0.06,95%CI 0.03-0.12), peripheral edema (OR 0.21,95%CI 0.09-0.44), dyspnea (OR 0.22,95%CI 0.08-0.51), nausea (OR 0.09,95%CI 0.02-0.24), diarrhea (OR 0.06,95%CI 0.02-0.15), constipation (OR 0.25,95%CI 0.11-0.53), and fatigue (OR 0.12,95%CI 0.07-0.20). AA had statistically significant more events of hot flashes (OR 3.85, 95% CI2.33-6.25). For other adverse events, both drugs were statistically similar. Conclusions: There is no difference in OS using AA for longer periods in CSPC than a regimen of a limited number of cycles of D. There are significant differences in side effect profile of these drugs. Further analyses are needed to determine cost effectiveness of AA vs D under consideration of comparative efficacy and safety.

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wenfeng Liu ◽  
Bing Quan ◽  
Shenxin Lu ◽  
Bei Tang ◽  
Miao Li ◽  
...  

ObjectiveSeveral new first-line treatments were recently approved for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In this meta-analysis, we compare the efficacy and safety of first-line systemic treatments to provide information for clinical decision making in unresectable HCC.MethodsPubmed, Science Direct, Web of Science, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Library, EMbase, CNKI, CBM, VIP, and the Wanfang databases, as well as the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails were searched for randomized clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of first-line chemotherapy, molecular targeted therapy, or immunotherapy for unresectable HCC. Hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to explore the effects of various treatment options on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), whereas odd ratios with 95% CIs were used for adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). A network meta-analysis was performed to synthesize data and for direct and indirect comparisons between treatments. The cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) and P score were used to rank treatments. The risk of bias across studies was assessed graphically and numerically using the funnel plot and Egger’s regression test.ResultsFifteen studies including 9005 patients were analyzed. Sintilimab plus bevacizumab, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, and donafenib had better OS outcomes than sorafenib. Sintilimab plus bevacizumab, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, lenvatinib, and linifanib had better PFS outcomes than sorafenib. The results of network meta-analysis showed that sintilimab plus bevacizumab was associated with the best OS and PFS. Egger’s tests indicated that none of the included studies had obvious publication deviation.ConclusionSintilimab plus bevacizumab showed the best OS and PFS outcomes with no additional AEs or SAEs. Thus, sintilimab plus bevacizumab may be a better first line choice for the treatment of patients with unresectable HCC.Systematic Review RegistrationPROSPEROI [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/index.php], identifier CRD42021269734.


2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sunil Badami ◽  
Sunil Upadhaya ◽  
Ravi Kanth Velagapudi ◽  
Pushyami Mikkilineni ◽  
Ranju Kunwor ◽  
...  

Background. We performed meta-analysis to gather more evidence regarding clinical-molecular subgroups associated with better overall survival (OS) in advanced melanoma treated with checkpoint inhibitors. Materials and Methods. We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and clinical trial.gov. Randomized clinical trials that compared a checkpoint inhibitor (nivolumab or pembrolizumab) with investigator choice chemotherapy or ipilimumab were included in our study. Hazard ratios (HR) and confidence interval (CI) were calculated for progression-free survival (PFS) and OS for each subgroup using generic inverse model along with the random effect method. Results. A total of 6 clinical trials were eligible for the meta-analysis. OS was prolonged in wild BRAF subgroup (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.49-0.85, p 0.002), Programmed cell death subgroup (PD-1+) (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.41-0.80, p 0.001), and high lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level subgroup (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.38-0.95, p 0.03). Similarly, we found increased OS in eastern cooperative oncology group (ECOG) 1, males and age >65 years subgroups. Conclusions. Checkpoint inhibitors significantly increased OS in patients with wild BRAF, positive PD-1, and high LDH. However, results should be interpreted keeping in mind associated significant heterogeneity. The results of this study should help in designing future clinical trials.


2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 124-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zahra Ghorbani ◽  
Mojgan Mirghafourvand

Objectives: An increase in life expectancy results in the aging population growth. This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of ginseng that could be used as a herbal medicine in women with sexual dysfunction. Materials and Methods: The authors of this study searched Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, ProQuest, Google Scholar, and Persian databases without a time limitation until May 2018 and examined all the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared the effect of different types of ginseng on sexual function of menopausal women as compared to the placebo controls. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. The heterogeneity was determined using the I2 index. In addition, standardized mean difference (SMD) was used instead of mean differences (MD) and a random effect was reported instead of fixed effect in meta-analysis. Results: The eligibility criteria were found in five RCTs. All the included studies were placebo-controlled. Two trials had a parallel design while three studies used a crossover design. Although four trials indicated that ginseng significantly improved sexual function, they didn’t report any treatment effect compared to the placebo group. Based on the results of meta-analysis obtained from five studies including 531 women, there was no statistically significant effect of ginseng on female sexual dysfunction (FSD) compared to the placebo control group (SMD: 0.26; 95% CI: -0.26 to 0.76). Nonetheless, there was a considerable heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 81%; P < 0.0001). Moreover, all the included studies assessed adverse events, but in three of the RCTs, there was no significant difference between the placebo and ginseng groups. Conclusions: The evidence regarding ginseng as a therapeutic agent for sexual dysfunction is unjustifiable. Rigorous studies seem warranted in this respect.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. e0257999
Author(s):  
Matilde Roda ◽  
Marco Pellegrini ◽  
Natalie Di Geronimo ◽  
Aldo Vagge ◽  
Michela Fresina ◽  
...  

Background To date, there is still no consensus regarding the effect of binocular treatment for amblyopia. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize the available evidence to determine whether binocular treatment is more effective than patching in children with amblyopia. Methods Four electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched for studies that compared binocular treatment and patching in children with amblyopia. The outcome measures were visual acuity and stereopsis. Pooled effects sizes were calculated with a random-effect model. The standardized difference in means (SDM) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated. Sensitivity analysis and assessment of publication bias were performed. Results Five randomized clinical trials were included. No significant difference in visual acuity between patients treated with binocular treatment and patching was observed (SDM = -0.12; 95% CI: -0.45–0.20; P = 0.464). No significant difference in stereopsis between patients treated with binocular treatment and patching was observed (SDM = -0.07; 95% CI: -0.61–0.48; P = 0.809). For both variables, the between-study heterogeneity was high (respectively, I2 = 61% and I2 = 57%). Conclusions This meta-analysis found no convincing evidence supporting the efficacy of binocular treatment as an alternative to conventional patching. Therefore, the binocular treatment cannot fully replace traditional treatment but, to date, it can be considered a valid complementary therapy in peculiar cases. Further studies are required to determine whether more engaging therapies and new treatment protocols are more effective.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yi Ru ◽  
Xiaojie Ding ◽  
Ying Luo ◽  
Hongjin Li ◽  
Xiaoying Sun ◽  
...  

BackgroundAnti-interleukin (IL)-23 agents are widely used for autoimmune disease treatment; however, the safety and risks of specific symptoms have not been systematically assessed.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to summarize the characteristics and mechanisms of occurrence of five immunological and non-immunological adverse events caused by different anti-IL-23 agents.MethodsThe Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were searched for eligible randomized clinical trials published from inception through May 1, 2020. Randomized clinical trials that reported at least one type of adverse event after treatment were included, regardless of sex, age, ethnicity, and diagnosis. Two investigators independently screened and extracted the characteristics of the studies, participants, drugs, and adverse event types. The Cochrane Handbook was used to assess the methodological quality of the included randomized clinical trials. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Meta-regression was applied to determine the sources of heterogeneity, and subgroup analysis was used to identify the factors contributing to adverse events.ResultsForty-eight studies were included in the meta-analysis, comprising 25,624 patients treated with anti-IL-23 agents. Serious immunological or non-immunological adverse events were rare. Anti-IL-12/23-p40 agents appeared to cause adverse events more easily than anti-IL-23-p19 agents. The incidence of cancer did not appear to be related to anti-IL-23 agent treatment, and long-term medication could lead to mental diseases. The prevention of complications should be carefully monitored when administered for over approximately 40 weeks to avoid further adverse reactions, and the incidence of infection was the highest among general immunological adverse events.ConclusionsThe application of anti-IL-23 agents induced a series of immunological and non-immunological adverse events, but these agents tend to be well-tolerated with good safety profiles.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Xueyi Deng ◽  
Fuqin Kang ◽  
Xueyin Chen ◽  
Jiaqi Lai ◽  
Xuanchen Guan ◽  
...  

Introduction. Acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) imposes a large burden on economy and society worldwide. In addition to western medicine, multiple kinds of qi-tonifying Chinese medicine injections have been widely used in China as adjunctive treatments. Previous small-sample clinical trials have proven their efficacy in the treatment of AECOPD. However, data on comparative effectiveness and safety of qi-tonifying injections are limited. We conducted this network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of 7 commonly used qi-tonifying injections in patients with AECOPD. Methods. Literature search was conducted through electronic databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, CBM, CNKI, Wanfang database, and VIP database. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) exploring the efficacy of any of these 7 qi-tonifying injections were included. The primary outcome was lung function (FEV1 and FVC). R 4.0.0 and STATA 12.0 were adopted to perform the network meta-analysis using Bayesian statistics. Results. A total of 36 RCTs involving 2657 participants were included. The results of network meta-analyses indicated that Chuankezhi injection (CKZ) combined with routine treatment (RT) was superior to other qi-tonifying injections combined with RT in terms of FEV1 improvement (MD = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.22, 1.04). For improving FVC, Shengmai injection (SGM) combined with RT showed the greatest therapeutic effect (MD = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.61). Moreover, SGM combined with RT revealed the best estimates for response rate (MD = 4.00, 95% CI: 1.34, 13.63). The main adverse events in this study were gastrointestinal reactions and injection site reactions. No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusion. In this network meta-analysis, SGM and CKZ were potential best adjunctive therapies in the treatment of AECOPD.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Somayeh Es-haghee ◽  
Fatemeh Shabani ◽  
Jessie Hawkins ◽  
Mohammad Ali Zareian ◽  
Fatemeh Nejatbakhsh ◽  
...  

ObjectivesPremenstrual syndrome (PMS) is a common disturbance among women of childbearing age. Aromatherapy is a commonly used form of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) to treat PMS. The purpose of this study is to quantify and summarize the effects of aromatherapy on premenstrual syndrome symptoms. Methods. PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched through relevant search terms until October 2020. The effect sizes were pooled as weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random effect model. Egger tests and visual inspection of the funnel plot were performed to identify the existence of publication bias. The I-squared (I2) test was applied to measure heterogeneity. Results. Eight studies (n = 8) were included in this analysis. The quantitative synthesis of evidence found that aromatherapy decreases PMS scores (WMD –13.83; 95% CI (−22.04, −5.63), I2 = 94.5%), total psychological symptoms of PMS (WMD –3.51; 95% CI (−4.84, −2.18), I2 = 82.6%), anxiety of PMS (WMD–1.78; 95% CI (−3.17, −0.38), I2 = 94.2%), depression of PMS (WMD–2.0; 95% CI (−3.65, −0.34), I2 = 93.7%), and fatigue of PMS (WMD – 1.44; 95% CI (−2.44, −0.44), I2 = 89.7%) compared to the control group. Conclusion. Aromatherapy is an effective tool for the relief of PMS symptoms. Additional randomized controlled clinical trials with different durations and essential oils should be conducted to confirm our findings.


2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Luca Schiliró Tristão ◽  
Francisco Tustumi ◽  
Guilherme Tavares ◽  
Letícia Nogueira Datrino ◽  
Maria Carolina Andrade Serafim ◽  
...  

Abstract   Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a widely studied and highly prevalent condition. However, few is reported about the exact efficacy and safety of fundoplication (FPT) compared to oral intake proton-pump inhibitors (PPI). This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCT) aims to compare PPI and FPT in relation to the efficacy, as well as the adverse events associated with these therapies. Methods This systematic review was guided by PRISMA statement. Search carried out in June 2020 was conducted on Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE and LILACS. The inclusion criteria were (I) patients with GERD; (II) Randomized clinical trials, comparing oral intake PPI with FPT; (III) relevant outcomes for this review. The exclusion criteria were (I) reviews, case reports, editorials and letters (II) transoral or endoscopic FPT (III) studies with no full text. No restrictions were set for language or period. Certainty of evidence and risk of bias were assessed with GRADE Pro and with Review Manager Version 5.4 bias assessment tool. Results Ten RCT were included. Meta-analysis showed that heartburn (RD = −0.19; 95% CI = −0.29, −0.09) was less frequently reported by patients that underwent FPT. Furthermore, patients undergoing surgery had greater pressure on the lower esophageal sphincter than those who used PPI (MD = 7.81; 95% CI 4.79, 10.83). There was no significant difference between groups in the percentage of time with pH less than 4 in 24 hours, sustained remission and Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale. Finally, FPT did not increase significantly the risk for adverse events such as postoperative dysphagia and impaired belching. Conclusion FPT is a more effective therapy than PPI treatment for GERD, without significantly increasing the risk for adverse events. However, before indicating a possible surgical approach, it is extremely important to correctly assess and select the patients who would benefit from FPT, such as those with severe erosive esophagitis, severe respiratory symptoms, low adherence to continuous drug treatment and patients with non-acid reflux, to ensure better results.


EP Europace ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Serenelli ◽  
F Vitali ◽  
R Pavasini ◽  
E Tonet ◽  
G Pompei ◽  
...  

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are not guideline-recommanded treatment for left ventricular thrombus.  Purpose: the aim of this meta-analysis is to compare NOACs versus vitamin-K atagonsits (VKAs) efficacy in treating left ventricular thrombus (LVT). Methods: we systematically searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Biomed Central, and Web of Science for trials comparing NOACs versus VKAs in the setting of LVT. Five studies, out of the 74 initially selected after first screening, were included in the meta-analysis. For the development of this meta-analysis, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. The shortlisted studies were retrieved as full articles and appraised independently by two unblinded reviewers. The Mantel-Haensel method with a random effect model was used for the pooled analysis. The primary outcome was the occurrence of stroke and systemic embolism. Secondary outcome was occurrence of left ventricular thrombosis resolution during treatment.  Results: 707 patients were included in the analysis for the primary outcome. Of these, 230 were treated with NOACs and 477 with VKAs. The pooled OR for the primary outcome was 0.71 (95% CI 0.18-2.86, I2 67%), thus showing similar effect in term of ischaemic protection. A total of 698 patients, 228 on NOACs and 470 on VKAs were included in the analysis of the secondary outcome. The pooled OR for the secondary outcome pooled OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.56-1.68, I2 46%. Conclusions and Relevance: NOACs seem to have a similar efficacy profile compare to VKAs and so they should be considered as an alternative treatment for left ventricular thrombosis. Large prospective randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm this exploratory finding. Abstract Figure 1


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document