scholarly journals Combination therapy versus gemcitabine monotherapy in the treatment of elderly pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2018 ◽  
Vol Volume 12 ◽  
pp. 475-480 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiamin Jin ◽  
Chunbo Teng ◽  
Tao Li
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

scholarly journals Intravenous Colistin Monotherapy versus Combination Therapy against Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria Infections: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (8) ◽  
pp. 208 ◽  
Author(s):  
I-Ling Cheng ◽  
Yu-Hung Chen ◽  
Chih-Cheng Lai ◽  
Hung-Jen Tang
Keyword(s):  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Gram Negative Bacteria ◽  
Gram Negative ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Carbapenem Resistant ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
All Cause Mortality

This meta-analysis aims to compare intravenous colistin monotherapy and colistin-based combination therapy against carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria (GNB) infections. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched up to July 2018. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating colistin alone and colistin-based combination therapy in the treatment of carbapenem-resistant GNB infections were included. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Five RCTs including 791 patients were included. Overall, colistin monotherapy was associated with a risk ratio (RR) of 1.03 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.89–1.20, I2 = 0%) for all-cause mortality compared with colistin-based combination therapy. The non-significant difference was also detected in infection-related mortality (RR, 1.23, 95% CI, 0.91–1.67, I2 = 0%) and microbiologic response (RR, 0.86, 95% CI, 0.72–1.04, I2 = 62%). In addition, no significant difference was observed in the subgroup analysis—high or low dose, with or without a loading dose, carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii infections, and in combination with rifampicin. Finally, colistin monotherapy was not associated with lower nephrotoxicity than colistin combination therapy (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84–1.21, I2 = 0%). Based on the analysis of the five RCTs, no differences were found between colistin monotherapy and colistin-based combination therapy against carbapenem-resistant GNB infections, especially for A. baumannii infections.

Intranasal Azelastine and Fluticasone as Combination Therapy for Allergic Rhinitis: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 161 (3) ◽  
pp. 412-418
Author(s):  
Peter M. Debbaneh ◽  
Anna K. Bareiss ◽  
Sarah K. Wise ◽  
Edward D. McCoul
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Nasal Spray ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Symptom Scores

Objective Combination therapy with intranasal azelastine and fluticasone propionate is an option for treatment of allergic rhinitis. This systematic review and meta-analysis examines existing literature to determine efficacy in treating allergic rhinitis compared to monotherapy. Data Sources The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and MEDLINE databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials using AzeFlu nasal spray. Review Methods Randomized, controlled trials that reported symptom relief of allergic rhinitis in males and females of all ages were included. Results were reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) standard. Results Systematic review identified 8 articles suitable for review. The risk of bias was generally low. All studies exhibited a greater decrease in patient-reported symptom scores in patients treated with combination therapy compared to monotherapy or placebo. Meta-analysis revealed superiority of combination therapy in reducing Total Nasal Symptom Score compared to placebo (mean change from baseline: −2.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], −2.82 to −1.99; P < .001; I 2 = 60%), azelastine (mean change from baseline: −1.40; 95% CI, −1.82 to −0.98; P < .001; I 2 = 0%), and fluticasone (mean change from baseline: −0.74; 95% CI, −1.17 to −0.31; P < .001; I 2 = 12%). Conclusion Current evidence supports both efficacy and superiority of combination intranasal azelastine and fluticasone in reducing patient-reported symptom scores in patients with allergic rhinitis. Combination nasal spray should be considered as second-line therapy in patients with allergic rhinitis that is not controlled with monotherapy.

scholarly journals Immunonutrition in Patients with Pancreatic Cancer Undergoing Surgical Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Nutrients ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (9) ◽  
pp. 2798
Author(s):  
Fu-An Yang ◽  
Yang-Ching Chen ◽  
Cheng Tiong
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Immune System ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Postoperative Outcome ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Continuous Variables ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Immunonutrition is administered to improve the outcome of patients with pancreatic cancer undergoing surgery. However, its effect and mechanism of action remain unclear. Therefore, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess its effects on postoperative outcome and the immune system. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified and data extracted by two reviewers independently from electronic databases from their inception to 31 October 2019. The result was expressed as the risk ratio (RR) for categorical variables and mean difference (MD) for continuous variables with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Six RCTs published from 1999 and 2016, with a total of 368 patients, were included. The results revealed that immunonutrition significantly decreased the rate of infectious complications (RR = 0.47, 95% CI (0.23, 0.94), p = 0.03) and the length of hospital stay (MD = −1.90, 95% CI (−3.78, −0.02), p = 0.05) by modulating the immune system, especially in preoperative group in subgroup analysis. We therefore recommend that patients with pancreatic cancer undergoing surgery could take the advantage of immunonutrition, especially in the preoperative period.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document