scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies for the Prevention of Migraine Compared with Placebo: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaojing Yi ◽  
Yun Chen ◽  
Kun Chen ◽  
Mo Liu ◽  
Jiale Yi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Monoclonal Antibodies ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Injection Site ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Upper Respiratory Tract ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Upper Respiratory ◽  
Secondary Outcomes

Abstract Background: Calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) are a novel class of drugs for migraine that includes erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab and eptinezumab. In clinical trials, CGRP mAbs have been reported to show good efficacy in the prevention of episodic migraines or chronic migraines. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CGRP monoclonal antibodies in this study.Methods: We systematically searched for randomized controlled trials in the PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Library databases. The primary outcome was overall mean change from baseline to end of treatment in the number of monthly migraine headache days (MMHDs). The secondary outcomes included 50% response rate, in the number of monthly headache days (MHDs), in the number of monthly headache hours (MHHs), and in the number of monthly acute migraine-specific medication days (MSMDs). The safety outcomes were evaluated in terms of reported adverse events. Results: Eighteen studies including 11,099 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that CGRP mAbs exhibited a significant benefit in reducing the number of MMHDs compared to placebo (Episodic migraine: Std. MD -0.42, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.36; Chronic migraine: Std. MD -0.28, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.21). Similarly, CGRP mAbs were superior to placebo in the secondary outcomes of 50% response rate, MHDs, MHHs, and MSMDs. With respect to safety, serious adverse events and withdrawal due to adverse events were not significantly associated with CGRP mAbs. Fremanezumab was associated with a significantly higher incidence of any adverse event compared with placebo (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.17). Galcanezumab was associated with significantly higher treatment-emergent adverse events compared with placebo (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.17). Constipation and injection site pain were significantly higher with erenumab than placebo. Injection site erythema and injection site induration were significantly higher with fremanezumab than placebo. Upper respiratory tract infection, injection site erythema, injection site pruritus and injection site reaction were significantly higher with galcanezumab than placebo. Conclusions: This study confirms that CGRP mAbs are effective as preventive treatments for episodic migraines and chronic migraines. Adverse reactions at the injection site were associated with erenumab, fremanezumab and galcanezumab therapy. Constipation was more common with erenumab. The risk of upper respiratory tract infection was higher with galcanezumab.Systematic review registration: Our PROSPERO protocol registration number: CRD42019125928. Registered 26 November 2019.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of New Anti-CD20 Monoclonal Antibodies Versus Rituximab for Induction Therapy of CD20+ B-Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 40-41
Author(s):  
Chengxin Luo ◽  
Xi Li ◽  
Shuangnian Xu ◽  
Jieping Chen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Monoclonal Antibodies ◽  
B Cell ◽  
Induction Therapy ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Ibritumomab Tiuxetan ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Anti Cd20

Rituximab combined with chemotherapy is the first-line induction therapy of CD20positive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas (CD20+ B-NHL). Recently new anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have been developed, but their efficacy and safety compared with rituximab are still controversial. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of new anti-CD20 mAbs compared with rituximab in the induction therapy of CD20+ B-NHL with a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library for eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared new anti-CD20 mAbs with rituximab in induction therapy of B-NHL. The primary outcomes are progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), additional outcomes include event-free survival (EFS), disease-free survival (DFS), overall response rate (ORR), complete response rate (CRR) and incidences of adverse events (AEs). Time-to-event data were pooled as hazard ratios (HRs) using the generic inverse-variance method and dichotomous outcomes were pooled as odds ratios (ORs) using the Mantel-Haenszel method with their respective 95% confidence interval (CI). Eleven RCTs comprising 5,261 patients with CD20+ B-NHL were included. Compared with rituximab, obinutuzumab significantly prolonged PFS (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-0.96, P = 0.01), had no improvement on OS, ORR, and CRR, but increased the incidences of serious AEs (OR 1.29, 95%CI 1.13-1.48, P < 0.001). Ofatumumab was inferior to rituximab in consideration of ORR (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55-0.96, P = 0.02), and had no significant differences with rituximab in regard to PFS, OS and CRR. 131I-tositumomab yield similar PFS, OS, ORR and CRR with rituximab. 90Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan increased ORR (OR 3.07, 95%CI 1.47-6.43, P = 0.003), but did not improve PFS, DFS, OS and CRR compared with rituximab. In conclusion, compared with rituximab in induction therapy of CD20+ B-NHL, obinutuzumab can significantly improves PFS but with higher incidence of AEs, ofatumumab decrease ORR, 90Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan increase ORR. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Efficacy and Safety of Antigen-specific Immunotherapy in the Treatment of Patients with Non-small-cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 199-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bing-Di Yan ◽  
Xiao-Feng Cong ◽  
Sha-Sha Zhao ◽  
Meng Ren ◽  
Zi-Ling Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Specific Immunotherapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Small Cell Lung

Background and Objective: We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of antigen-specific immunotherapy (Belagenpumatucel-L, MAGE-A3, L-BLP25, and TG4010) in the treatment of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). </P><P> Methods: A comprehensive literature search on PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science was conducted. Eligible studies were clinical trials of patients with NSCLC who received the antigenspecific immunotherapy. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) were calculated for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS). Pooled risk ratios (RRs) were calculated for overall response rate (ORR) and the incidence of adverse events. </P><P> Results: In total, six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 4,806 patients were included. Pooled results showed that, antigen-specific immunotherapy did not significantly prolong OS (HR=0.92, 95%CI: 0.83, 1.01; P=0.087) and PFS (HR=0.93, 95%CI: 0.85, 1.01; P=0.088), but improved ORR (RR=1.72, 95%CI: 1.11, 2.68; P=0.016). Subgroup analysis based on treatment agents showed that, tecemotide was associated with a significant improvement in OS (HR=0.85, 95%CI: 0.74, 0.99; P=0.03) and PFS (HR=0.70, 95%CI: 0.49, 0.99, P=0.044); TG4010 was associated with an improvement in PFS (HR=0.87, 95%CI: 0.75, 1.00, P=0.058). In addition, NSCLC patients who were treated with antigen-specific immunotherapy exhibited a significantly higher incidence of adverse events than those treated with other treatments (RR=1.11, 95%CI: 1.00, 1.24; P=0.046). </P><P> Conclusion: Our study demonstrated the clinical survival benefits of tecemotide and TG4010 in the treatment of NSCLC. However, these evidence might be limited by potential biases. Therefore, further well-conducted, large-scale RCTs are needed to verify our findings.

Crizotinib Versus Chemotherapy on ALK-positive NSCLC: A Systematic Review of Efficacy and Safety

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mingxia Wang ◽  
Guanqi Wang ◽  
Haiyan Ma ◽  
Baoen Shan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Objective Response Rate ◽  
Retrospective Studies ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Treated Group ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Alk Positive

Introduction: Crizotinib was approved to treat anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)- positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by the Food and Drug Administration in 2011.We conducted a systematic review of clinical trials and retrospective studies to compare the efficacy and safety of crizotinib with chemotherapy. </P><P> Methods: We searched electronic databases from inception to Dec. 2016. Clinical trials and retrospective studies regarding crizotinib and crizotinib versus chemotherapy in treatment of NSCLC were eligible. The primary outcomes were the objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR). Results: Nine studies (five clinical trials and four retrospective studies) including 729 patients met the inclusion criteria. Crizotinib treatment revealed 1-year OS of 77.1% and PFS of 9.17 months. And crizotinib had a better performance than chemotherapy in ORR (OR: 4.97, 95%CI: 3.16 to 7.83, P<0.00001, I2=35%). DCR revealed superiority with crizotinib than chemotherapy (OR: 3.42, 95% CI: 2.33 to 5.01, P<0.00001, I2=0%). PR (partial response) were significant superior to that of chemotherapy through direct systematic review. No statistically significant difference in CR (complete response) was found between crizotinib-treated group and chemotherapy-treated group. Regarding SD (stable disease), chemotherapy-treated group had a better performance than crizotinib-treated group. Common adverse events associated with crizotinib were visual disorder, gastrointestinal side effects, and elevated liver aminotransferase levels, whereas common adverse events with chemotherapy were fatigue, nausea, and hematologic toxicity. This systematic review revealed improved objective response rate and increased disease control rate in crizotinib group comparing with chemotherapy group. Crizotinib treatment would be a favorable treatment option for patients with ALK-positive NSCLC. ALK inhibitors may have future potential applications in other cancers driven by ALK or c-MET gene mutations.

scholarly journals CGRP-antibodies, topiramate and botulinum toxin type A in episodic and chronic migraine: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cephalalgia ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 033310242110181
Author(s):  
Florian Frank ◽  
Hanno Ulmer ◽  
Victoria Sidoroff ◽  
Gregor Broessner
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Monoclonal Antibodies ◽  
Botulinum Toxin ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Botulinum Toxin Type A ◽  
Type A ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Botulinum Toxin Type ◽  
Odds Ratios

Background The approval of monoclonal antibodies for prevention of migraine has revolutionized treatment for patients. Oral preventatives are still considered first line treatments as head-to-head trials comparing them with antibodies are lacking. Methods The main purpose of this study was to provide a comparative overview of the efficacy of three commonly prescribed migraine preventative medication classes. For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched the databases CENTRAL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE until 20 March 2020. We included RCTs reporting the 50% response rates for topiramate, Botulinum Toxin Type A and monoclonal antibodies against CGRP(r). Studies were excluded if response rates were not reported, treatment allocation was unclear, or if study quality was insufficient. Primary outcome measure were the 50% response rates. The pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated with the random effects model. The study was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020222880). Findings We identified 6552 reports. Thirty-two were eligible for our review. Studies assessing monoclonal antibodies included 13,302 patients and yielded pooled odds ratios for the 50% response rate of 2.30 (CI: 2.11–2.50). Topiramate had an overall effect estimate of 2.70 (CI: 1.97–3.69) with 1989 included patients and Botulinum Toxin Type A achieved 1.28 (CI: 0.98–1. 67) with 2472 patients included. Interpretation Topiramate, botulinum toxin type A and monoclonal antibodies showed higher odds ratios in achieving a 50% response rate compared to placebo. Topiramate numerically demonstrated the greatest effect size but also the highest drop-out rate.

Inhaled Levodopa (CVT-301) for the Treatment of Parkinson Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
pp. 10.1212/CPJ.0000000000001143
Author(s):  
Glenardi Glenardi ◽  
Tutwuri Handayani ◽  
Jimmy Barus ◽  
Ghea Mangkuliguna
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Placebo Group ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Respiratory Symptoms ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Motor Fluctuation ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Improve Motor Function

ABSTRACTPurposeof Review: To investigate the efficacy and safety of CVT-301 for motor fluctuation in Parkinson’s disease (PD).Recent Findings:This study demonstrated that the CVT-301 group had a higher proportion of patients achieving an ON state than the placebo group (OR=2.68; 95% CI: 1.86-3.86; p<0.00001). Moreover, CVT-301 had also shown to improve motor function by UPDRS-III score (SMD=3.83; 95% CI: 2.44-5.23; p<0.00001) and promote an overall improvement of PD by PGIC self-rating (OR=2.95; 95% CI: 1.78-4.9; p<0.00001). The most common adverse events encountered were respiratory symptoms (OR=12.18; 95% CI: 5.01-29.62; p<0.00001) and nausea (OR=3.95; 95% CI: 1.01-15.41; p=0.05).Summary:CVT-301 had the potential to be an alternative or even a preferred treatment for motor fluctuation in PD patients.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of omalizumab in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. e047344
Author(s):  
Qingwu Wu ◽  
Lianxiong Yuan ◽  
Huijun Qiu ◽  
Xinyue Wang ◽  
Xuekun Huang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Chronic Rhinosinusitis ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Nasal Polyps ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy and safety of omalizumab for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and to identify evidence gaps that will guide future research on omalizumab for CRSwNP.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesA comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library on 13 October 2020.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing omalizumab with placebo, given for at least 16 weeks in adult patients with CRSwNP.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent authors screened search results, extracted data and assessed studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data were pooled using the inverse-variance method and expressed as mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was assessed by the χ2 test and the I2 statistic.ResultsA total of four RCTs involving 303 participants were identified. When comparing omalizumab to placebo, there was a significant difference in Nasal Polyps Score (MD=−1.20; 95% CI −1.48 to −0.92), Nasal Congestion Score (MD=−0.67; 95% CI −0.86 to −0.48), Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (MD=−15.62; 95% CI −19.79 to −11.45), Total Nasal Symptom Score (MD=−1.84; 95% CI −2.43 to −1.25) and reduced need for surgery (risk ratio (RR)=5.61; 95% CI 1.99 to 15.81). Furthermore, there was no difference in the risk of serious adverse events ((RR=1.40; 95% CI 0.29 to 6.80), adverse events (RR=0.83; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.15) and rescue systemic corticosteroid (RR=0.52; 95% CI 0.17 to 1.61).ConclusionsThis was the first meta-analysis that identified omalizumab significantly improved endoscopic, clinical and patient-reported outcomes in adults with moderate to severe CRSwNP and it was safe and well tolerated.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020207639.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of pirfenidone in the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. e050004
Author(s):  
Wenjuan Wu ◽  
Lingxiao Qiu ◽  
Jizhen Wu ◽  
Xueya Liu ◽  
Guojun Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis ◽  
Pulmonary Fibrosis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Acute Exacerbation ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesIdiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) has been defined as a distinctive type of chronic fibrotic disease, characterised by a progressive decline in lung function and a common histological pattern of interstitial pneumonia. To analyse the efficacy and safety of pirfenidone in the treatment of IPF, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed.DesignThis is a meta-analysis study.ParticipantsPatients were diagnosed as IPF.InterventionsUse of pirfenidone.Primary and secondary outcomeProgression-free survival (PFS), acute exacerbation and worsening of IPF and Impact on adverse events.MeasuresThe inverse variance method for the random-effects model was used to summarise the dichotomous outcomes, risk ratios and 95% CIs.ResultsA total of 9 randomised controlled trials with 1011 participants receiving pirfenidone and 912 controls receiving placebo were summarised. The pooled result suggested a statistically significant difference inall-cause mortality after pirfenidone use, with a summarised relative ratio of 0.51 (p<0.01). Longer PFS was observed in patients receiving pirfenidone compared with those who were given placebo (p<0.01). The IPF groups presented a high incidence of adverse events with a pooled relative ratio of 3.89 (p<0.01).ConclusionsPirfenidone can provide survival benefit for patients with IPF. Pirfenidone treatment was also associated with a longer PFS, a lower incidence of acute exacerbation and worsening of IPF.

scholarly journals Acupuncture for refractory gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e030713 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dacheng Li ◽  
Li Zhu ◽  
Daming Liu
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Reflux Disease ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oesophageal Reflux ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Oesophageal Reflux Disease

IntroductionRefractory gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (rGORD) is a common disease, affecting patients’ quality of life. Since conventional medicines have limitations, like low effective rates and adverse events, acupuncture may be a promising therapy for rGORD. While no related systematic review has been published, the present study is designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for rGORD.Methods and analysisPubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Chinese electronic databases, including China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan Fang database, VIP, SinoMed and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, will be searched from establishment of the database to 31 August 2019. There will be no limitations on language, and all articles will be screened and collected by two reviewers independently. RevMan V.5.3.5 software will be used for meta-analysis, and the conduction of study will refer to the Cochrane Handbook for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol guidelines. The efficacy and safety of acupuncture for rGORD will be evaluated based on outcomes, including global symptom improvement, oesophageal sphincter function test measured by high-resolution manometry, quality of life, recurrence rate and adverse events.Ethics and disseminationThere is no necessity for this study to acquire an ethical approval, and this review will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal or conference presentation.Trial registration numberCRD42018111912.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document