Efficacy and Safety of First-Line Therapeutic Drugs with Potential for the Treatment of Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia: A Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuxuan Hu ◽  
Yang Li ◽  
Fan Jiang ◽  
Taihang Shao ◽  
Bing Hu ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Yang ◽  
R. Chen ◽  
T. Sun ◽  
L. Zhao ◽  
F. Liu ◽  
...  

Background Combined androgen blockade (cab) is a promising treatment modality for prostate cancer (pca). In the present meta-analysis, we compared the efficacy and safety of first-line cab using an antiandrogen (aa) with castration monotherapy in patients with advanced pca.Methods PubMed, embase, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were searched for randomized controlled trials (rcts) published through 12 December 2016. Hazard ratios (hrs) with 95% confidence intervals (cis) were determined for primary outcomes: overall survival (os) and progression-free survival (pfs). Subgroup analyses were performed for Western compared with Eastern patients and use of a nonsteroidal aa (nsaa) compared with a steroidal aa (saa).Results Compared with castration monotherapy, cab using an aa was associated with significantly improved os (n = 14; hr: 0.90; 95% ci: 0.84 to 0.97; p = 0.003) and pfs (n = 13; hr: 0.89; 95% ci: 0.80 to 1.00; p = 0.04). No significant difference in os (p = 0.71) and pfs (p = 0.49) was observed between the Western and Eastern patients. Compared with castration monotherapy, cab using a nsaa was associated with significantly improved os (hr: 0.88; 95% ci: 0.82 to 0.95; p = 0.0009) and pfs (hr: 0.85; 95% ci: 0.73 to 0.98; p = 0.007)—a result that was not achieved with cab using a saa. The safety profiles of cab and monotherapy were similar in terms of adverse events, including hot flushes, impotence, and grade 3 or 4 events, with the exception of risk of diarrhea and liver dysfunction or elevation in liver enzymes, which were statistically greater with cab using an aa.Conclusions Compared with castration monotherapy, first-line cab therapy with an aa, especially a nsaa, resulted in significantly improved os and pfs, and had an acceptable safety profile in patients with advanced pca.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 257-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Zheng ◽  
Jie Ying ◽  
Yan Zhou ◽  
Zhiwen Lu ◽  
Ke Min ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16074-e16074
Author(s):  
Kirsi Manz ◽  
Klaus Fenchel ◽  
Andreas Eilers ◽  
Jon Morgan ◽  
Kirsten Wittling ◽  
...  

e16074 Background: During the last decade several novel treatment options including TKIs and immune checkpoint inhibitors have been developed for the treatment of mRCC patients. However, results from direct comparisons (head-to-head RCTs) to determine the optimal treatment are lacking for most of these agents. In this network meta-analysis we attempted to indirectly compare efficacy and safety of first-line TKIs in patients with mRCC. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched (English language only). Abstracts of conferences of relevant medical societies were also included from database inception (January 1, 2007) to January 15, 2019. A systematic manual search (including data requests from the publication authors) was also performed. For the purpose of this network meta-analysis only phase II/III RCTs assessing approved first-line TKI therapy for mRCC were analysed. The analysis was done using the software R with the netmeta package. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint; grade 3 and 4 adverse events (AEs) were secondary endpoints. Results: A database search identified 12 studies meeting the eligibility criteria reporting on 4,460 patients. For PFS cabozantinib and sunitinib were found to be superior to sorafenib, however, when compared to tivozanib, PFS did not significantly differ between the TKIs. Furthermore, tivozanib was found to have the highest probability of being the safest drug as first-line treatment in terms of grade 3 and 4 AEs (ranking safety, p score 0.9344). Conclusions: No significant PFS differences for all TKIs currently used for first-line treatment of mRCC have been found when compared with tivozanib. Compared with all approved TKIs tivozanib appears to be the best choice for first-line treatment of these patients because it has demonstrated the most favourable safety profile. These results may provide guidance to oncologists when making treatment decisions for mRCC patients.


2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (11) ◽  
pp. e510-e520 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Kanters ◽  
Marco Vitoria ◽  
Meg Doherty ◽  
Maria Eugenia Socias ◽  
Nathan Ford ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 696-712 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emil ter Veer ◽  
Nadia Haj Mohammad ◽  
Paul Lodder ◽  
Lok Lam Ngai ◽  
Mary Samaan ◽  
...  

Lung Cancer ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 135 ◽  
pp. 196-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Griesinger ◽  
Ellen E. Korol ◽  
Sheena Kayaniyil ◽  
Nebibe Varol ◽  
Timo Ebner ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document