Effectiveness of Lomustine Combined With Bevacizumab in Glioblastoma: A Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Despite surgical and chemotherapeutical treatment options, the prognosis for glioblastoma (GBM) remains poor. Some studies have found that using lomustine plus bevacizumab to treat GBM can prolong overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The aim of this study was to explore the efficacy of the two drugs in combination treatment of GBM using a meta-analysis of the existing literature to help settle the ongoing debate.Materials and Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for the effectiveness of lomustine plus bevacizumab in GBM literature, updated on June 6, 2020. The main outcomes analyzed included PFS and OS; the effects of this drug combination on the 6-month PFS, which represents the percentage of patients who had PFS for 6 months, were also analyzed. All the data were pooled: OS and PFS with the mean difference (MD) and 6-month PFS with the risk ratio (RR). Because there were different control groups and dose groups, two subgroup analyses were run to ensure they were comparable. All statistical analyses were performed using the Review Manager Version 5.3 software.Results: Six clinical trials were identified which included 1,095 patients (treatment group: 516; control group: 579). The group treated with lomustine and bevacizumab showed an improvement in OS (MD =1.37; 95% CI, 0.49–2.25; p = 0.002), PFS (MD = 0.23; 95% CI, 0.13–0.34; p < 0.00001), and 6-month PFS (RR = 2.29; 95% CI, 1.43–3.65; p = 0.0005). Two subgroup analyses of the main outcome, OS, show that the results of Control group A (p = 0.01) and Dose group 2 (p = 0.003) are significantly different from those of the other control or dose groups.Conclusion: This study shows that lomustine and bevacizumab can effectively increase OS, PFS, and 6-month PFS in patients with GBM. The encouraging results of the lomustine and bevacizumab combination therapy for GBM should be studied in more clinical trials in the future.

Download Full-text

Association between serum visfatin levels and psoriasis and their correlation with disease severity: a meta-analysis

Journal of International Medical Research ◽

10.1177/03000605211002381 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 49 (3) ◽

pp. 030006052110023

Author(s):

Qian Zou ◽

Jiawei Si ◽

Yatao Guo ◽

Jiayu Yu ◽

Huijuan Shi

Keyword(s):

Body Mass Index ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Severity Index ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Control Group ◽

Inclusion Criteria ◽

Subgroup Analyses ◽

Mean Differences ◽

The Cochrane Library ◽

Psoriasis Severity

Objective To determine the association between serum visfatin levels and psoriasis and to evaluate the correlation between serum visfatin levels and the severity of psoriasis. Methods The electronic databases PubMed®, Embase® and the Cochrane Library were searched for articles published from inception to 1 May 2020. Data were extracted and then standard mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for pooled estimates. Results A total of 11 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included (448 patients diagnosed with psoriasis and 377 controls). This meta-analysis demonstrated that patients with psoriasis had significantly higher levels of visfatin than the controls (SMD = 0.90, 95% CI 0.52, 1.28). Subgroup analyses showed that differences in serum visfatin levels between the patient group and the control group were associated with ethnicity, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and body mass index. Additionally, a meta-analysis of correlations showed that visfatin levels in patients with psoriasis were positively correlated with PASI ( r = 0.51, 95% CI 0.14, 0.75). Conclusions This meta-analysis showed that serum visfatin levels in patients with psoriasis were significantly higher than those in the controls and a positive correlation between serum visfatin levels and psoriasis severity was observed.

Download Full-text

The efficacy and safety of bamlanivimab treatment against COVID-19: A meta-analysis

10.1101/2021.08.24.21262580 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Huairong Xiang ◽

Bei He ◽

Yun Li ◽

Xuan Cheng ◽

Qizhi Zhang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

Observational Studies ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Web Of Science ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Control Group ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Positive Treatment ◽

The Cochrane Library

Background: Bamlanivimab is routinely used in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in worldwide. We performed a meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of bamlanivimab treatment in patients with COVID-19. Methods: We searched articles from Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and MedRxiv between 30 January 2020 and August 5, 2021. We selected randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies with a control group to assess the efficiency of bamlanivimab in treating patients with COVID-19. Results: Our meta-analysis retrieved 3 RCTs and 7 cohort studies including 14461 patients. Bmlanivimab may help outpatients to prevent hospitalization or emergency department visit (RR 0.41 95%CI 0.29 to 0.58), reduce ICU admission (RR 0.47 95%CI 0.23 to 0.92) and mortality (RR 0.32 95%CI 0.13 to 0.77) from the disease. The combination of bamlanivimab and etesevimab may had a greater potential for positive treatment outcome. Conclusion: Bamlanivimab has demonstrated clinical efficacy on mild or moderate ill patients with COVID-19 to prevent hospitalization, reduce severity and mortality from the disease. Combinations of two or more monoclonal antibody increase the effect. Well-designed clinical trials to identify the clinical and biochemical characteristics in COVID-19 patients'population that could benefit from bamlanivimab are warranted in the future.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and Safety of Anti-HER2 Agents in Combination With Chemotherapy for Metastatic HER2-Positive Breast Cancer Patient: A Network Meta-Analysis

Frontiers in Oncology ◽

10.3389/fonc.2021.731210 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 ◽

Author(s):

Xiaohui Zhang ◽

Junsheng Leng ◽

Yidong Zhou ◽

Feng Mao ◽

Yan Lin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Objective Response ◽

Metastatic Breast ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Breast Cancers ◽

First Line ◽

Her2 Positive ◽

The Cochrane Library

BackgroundThe presence of anti-HER2 agents, such as trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1), significantly improved the prognosis of metastatic HER2-positive (HER2+) breast cancers (BC). However, drug resistance and disease progression are still common. In order to further improve the treatment efficacy, new clinical trials about anti-HER2 agents in combination with chemotherapy are growing rapidly. We conducted the network meta-analysis to synthesize evidences of clinical trials to identify the best therapy for metastatic HER2+ BC.MethodsA systematic search of randomized controlled trials regarding anti-HER2 agents in combination with chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic breast cancers up to May 2020 was conducted in Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize the results and rank the therapies.ResultsTwenty-six studies, including 16 studies for first-line treatments and 10 studies for second- or later-line treatments were included in the network meta-analysis. For first-line studies, the THP (taxanes + trastuzumab + pertuzumab) regimen exhibited the highest probability to be the optimal treatment in all efficacy outcomes and moderate safety. For second- or later-line studies, the T-DM1 and XHTuC (capecitabine + trastuzumab + tucatinib) regimens ranked top two in all efficacy outcomes according to the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) results. T-DM1 ranked first in PFS and OS whereas XHTuC ranked first in ORR. The safety outcomes of T-DM1 and XHTuC were acceptable.ConclusionsTHP was still the optimal first-line treatment for metastatic HER2+ BC. T-DM1 and XHTuC were recommended for second-line treatments.Systematic Review RegistrationINPLASY.com, identifier (INPLASY202090086).

Download Full-text

EXPRESS: Stroke risk following traumatic brain injury: systematic review and meta-analysis

International Journal of Stroke ◽

10.1177/17474930211004277 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 174749302110042

Author(s):

Grace Mary Turner ◽

Christel McMullan ◽

Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi ◽

Danai Bem ◽

Tom Marshall ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Stroke Risk ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Vitamin K Antagonists ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Control Group ◽

Large Sample Size ◽

Hazard Ratios ◽

Increased Risk ◽

The Cochrane Library

Aims To investigate the association between TBI and stroke risk. Summary of review We undertook a systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library from inception to 4th December 2020. We used random-effects meta-analysis to pool hazard ratios (HR) for studies which reported stroke risk post-TBI compared to controls. Searches identified 10,501 records; 58 full texts were assessed for eligibility and 18 met the inclusion criteria. The review included a large sample size of 2,606,379 participants from four countries. Six studies included a non-TBI control group, all found TBI patients had significantly increased risk of stroke compared to controls (pooled HR 1.86; 95% CI 1.46-2.37). Findings suggest stroke risk may be highest in the first four months post-TBI, but remains significant up to five years post-TBI. TBI appears to be associated with increased stroke risk regardless of severity or subtype of TBI. There was some evidence to suggest an association between reduced stroke risk post-TBI and Vitamin K antagonists and statins, but increased stroke risk with certain classes of antidepressants. Conclusion TBI is an independent risk factor for stroke, regardless of TBI severity or type. Post-TBI review and management of risk factors for stroke may be warranted.

Download Full-text

Intravenous dexmedetomidine during spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section: A meta-analysis of randomized trials

Journal of International Medical Research ◽

10.1177/0300060517708945 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 45 (3) ◽

pp. 924-932 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Zeqing Bao ◽

Chengmao Zhou ◽

Xianxue Wang ◽

Yu Zhu

Keyword(s):

Caesarean Section ◽

Spinal Anaesthesia ◽

Randomized Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Relevant Literature ◽

Nausea And Vomiting ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Control Group ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

The Cochrane Library

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of spinal anaesthesia using dexmedetomidine for caesarean section. Methods PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and CNKI were searched for relevant literature. Results The incidence of nausea and vomiting in the dexmedetomidine group was significantly lower than that in the control group (OR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.12–0.35, P < 0.00001). No difference was found in the incidence of pruritus between the two groups (OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.36–4.09, P = 0.76).The dexmedetomidine group had a higher incidence of bradycardia than did the control group (OR = 2.20, 95% CI: 1.02–4.77, P = 0.05). The incidence of shivering in the dexmedetomidine group was significantly lower than that in the control group (OR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.13–0.32, P < 0.00001). The incidence of hypotension was not different between the two groups (OR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.49–1.56, P = 0.65). Conclusion Dexmedetomidine can decrease the incidence of nausea, vomiting, bradycardia, and shivering with spinal anaesthesia during caesarean section.

Download Full-text

Nervous and Muscular Adverse Events after COVID-19 Vaccination: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

Vaccines ◽

10.3390/vaccines9080939 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 9 (8) ◽

pp. 939

Author(s):

Jiaxin Chen ◽

Yuangui Cai ◽

Yicong Chen ◽

Anthony P. Williams ◽

Yifang Gao ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Fixed Effects ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Phase 1 ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Categorical Variables ◽

Control Group ◽

Open Label

Background: Nervous and muscular adverse events (NMAEs) have garnered considerable attention after the vaccination against coronavirus disease (COVID-19). However, the incidences of NMAEs remain unclear. We aimed to calculate the pooled event rate of NMAEs after COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials on the incidences of NMAEs after COVID-19 vaccination was conducted. The PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched from inception to 2 June 2021. Two independent reviewers selected the study and extracted the data. Categorical variables were analyzed using Pearson’s chi-square test. The pooled odds ratio (OR) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated and generated with random or fixed effects models. The protocol of the present study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021240450). Results: In 15 phase 1/2 trials, NMAEs occurred in 29.2% vs. 21.6% (p < 0.001) vaccinated participants and controls. Headache and myalgia accounted for 98.2% and 97.7%, and their incidences were 16.4% vs. 13.9% (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.28–3.06, p = 0.002) and 16.0% vs. 7.9% (OR = 3.31, 95% CI = 2.05–5.35, p < 0.001) in the vaccine and control groups, respectively. Headache and myalgia were more frequent in the newly licensed vaccines (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.28–3.06, p = 0.02 and OR = 3.31, 95% CI = 2.05–5.35, p < 0.001) and younger adults (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.12–1.75, p = 0.003 and OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.20–1.96, p < 0.001). In four open-label trials, the incidences of headache, myalgia, and unsolicited NMAEs were 38.7%, 27.4%, and 1.5%. Following vaccination in phase 3 trials, headache and myalgia were still common with a rate of 29.5% and 19.2%, although the unsolicited NMAEs with incidence rates of ≤ 0.7% were not different from the control group in each study. Conclusions: Following the vaccination, NMAEs are common of which headache and myalgia comprised a considerable measure, although life-threatening unsolicited events are rare. NMAEs should be continuously monitored during the ongoing global COVID-19 vaccination program.

Download Full-text

Better survival of patients with oligo- compared with polymetastatic cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 173 studies

F1000Research ◽

10.12688/f1000research.52546.3 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 ◽

pp. 423

Author(s):

Fausto Petrelli ◽

Antonio Ghidini ◽

Michele Ghidini ◽

Roberta Bukovec ◽

Francesca Trevisan ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Meta Analysis ◽

Stage Iv ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Hazard Ratio ◽

Modern Concept ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Published Data ◽

Risk Of Death ◽

Personalized Approach ◽

The Cochrane Library

Background: The modern concept of oligometastatic (OM) state has been initially developed to describe patients with a low burden of disease and with a potential for cure with local ablative treatments. We systematically assessed the risk of death and relapse of oligometastatic (OM) cancers compared to cancers with more diffuse metastatic spread, through a meta-analysis of published data. Methods: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched for studies reporting prognosis of patients with OM solid tumors. Risk of death and relapse were extracted and pooled to provide an adjusted hazard ratio with a 95% confidence interval (HR 95%CI). The primary outcome of the study refers to overall mortality in OM vs. polymetastatic (PM) patients. Results. Mortality and relapse associated with OM state in patients with cancer were evaluated among 104,234 participants (n=173 studies). Progression-free survival was better in patients with OM disease (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.62, 95% CI 0.57–0.68; P <.001; n=69 studies). Also, OM cancers were associated with a better overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.62-0.68; P<.01; n=161 studies). In colorectal (CRC), breast, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and renal cell carcinoma (RCC) the reduction in the risk of death for OM patients were 35, 38, 30 and 42%, respectively. Biliary tract and cervical cancer do not significantly better in OM stage likely for paucity of data. Conclusions. Patients with OM cancers have a significantly better prognosis than those with more widespread stage IV tumors. In OM cancer patients a personalized approach should be pursued.

Download Full-text

Impact of Ketamine on Pain Management in Cesarean Section: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

January 2018 - Pain Physician ◽

10.36076/ppj.2020/23/135 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 2;23 (4;2) ◽

pp. 135-148

Author(s):

Zifeng Xu

Keyword(s):

Cesarean Section ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Control Group ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Control Effect ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Time Required ◽

The Cochrane Library

Background: The pain control effect of ketamine versus control in women during cesarean operation is not well determined. Objectives: The present meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of ketamine versus control in cesarean section anesthesia for reducing the postoperative pain and analgesia. Study Design: We used meta-analysis to address this concern. Setting: Meta-analysis-based study. Methods: The databases PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched to identify the relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ketamine versus control in controlling pain after cesarean section from inception to August 2018. Based on the Cochrane Handbook, the combined analysis was performed using Revman 5.3 software. Results: A total of 20 RCTs with 1,737 patients who underwent cesarean section were included. Meta-analysis showed that the pain score in the ketamine group was less than that of the control group (mean difference [MD], –1.10; 95% confidence interval [CI], –1.61, –0.59; P < 0.0001). Application of ketamine during cesarean section also resulted in decreased consumption of morphine when compared with the control group (MD, –6.11 mg; 95% CI, –9.93, –2.29; P = 0.002). In addition, the first time required for analgesia was significantly longer in the ketamine group than that of the control group (MD, 72.48 minutes; 95% CI, 50.85, 94.11; P < 0.00001). Limitations: Limited patients were included with moderate strength. Conclusions: Ketamine supplementation during cesarean section reduces pain and morphine consumption and prolongs the postoperative analgesia. Key words: Ketamine, cesarean section, randomized controlled trials, meta-analysis

Download Full-text

Survival of Patients Treated with Antibiotics and Immunotherapy for Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal of Clinical Medicine ◽

10.3390/jcm9051458 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 9 (5) ◽

pp. 1458 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Fausto Petrelli ◽

Alessandro Iaculli ◽

Diego Signorelli ◽

Antonio Ghidini ◽

Lorenzo Dottorini ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cancer Patients ◽

Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Free Survival ◽

Patients With Cancer ◽

Hazard Ratios ◽

The Cochrane Library ◽

Reporting Data

Antibiotics (ABs) are common medications used for treating infections. In cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), concomitant exposure to ABs may impair the efficacy of ICIs and lead to a poorer outcome compared to AB non-users. We report here the results of a meta-analysis evaluating the effects of ABs on the outcome of patients with solid tumours treated with ICIs. PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Embase were searched from inception until September 2019 for observational or prospective studies reporting the prognoses of adult patients with cancer treated with ICIs and with or without ABs. Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint, and progression-free survival (PFS) was the secondary endpoint. The effect size was reported as hazard ratios (HRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and an HR > 1 associated with a worse outcome in ABs users compared to AB non-users. Fifteen publications were retrieved for a total of 2363 patients. In the main analysis (n = 15 studies reporting data), OS was reduced in patients exposed to ABs before or during treatment with ICIs (HR = 2.07, 95%CI 1.51–2.84; p < 0.01). Similarly, PFS was inferior in AB users in n = 13 studies with data available (HR = 1.53, 95%CI 1.22–1.93; p < 0.01). In cancer patients treated with ICIs, AB use significantly reduced OS and PFS. Short duration/course of ABs may be considered in clinical situations in which they are strictly needed.

Download Full-text

Therapeutic efficacy of specific immunotherapy for glioma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Reviews in the Neurosciences ◽

10.1515/revneuro-2017-0057 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 29 (4) ◽

pp. 443-461 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Sara Hanaei ◽

Khashayar Afshari ◽

Armin Hirbod-Mobarakeh ◽

Bahram Mohajer ◽

Delara Amir Dastmalchi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Overall Survival ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Specific Immunotherapy ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Control Group ◽

Free Survival ◽

Median Difference

Abstract Although different immunotherapeutic approaches have been developed for the treatment of glioma, there is a discrepancy between clinical trials limiting their approval as common treatment. So, the current systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess survival and clinical response of specific immunotherapy in patients with glioma. Generally, seven databases were searched to find eligible studies. Controlled clinical trials investigating the efficacy of specific immunotherapy in glioma were found eligible. After data extraction and risk of bias assessment, the data were analyzed based on the level of heterogeneity. Overall, 25 articles with 2964 patients were included. Generally, mean overall survival did not statistically improve in immunotherapy [median difference=1.51; 95% confidence interval (CI)=−0.16–3.17; p=0.08]; however, it was 11.16 months higher in passive immunotherapy (95% CI=5.69–16.64; p<0.0001). One-year overall survival was significantly higher in immunotherapy groups [hazard ratio (HR)=0.69; 95% CI=0.52–0.92; p=0.01]. As the hazard rate in the immunotherapy approach was 0.83 of the control group, 2-year overall survival was significantly higher in immunotherapy (HR=0.83; 95% CI=0.69–0.99; p=0.04). Three-year overall survival was significantly higher in immunotherapy as well (HR=0.67; 95% CI=0.48–0.92; p=0.01). Overall, median progression-free survival was significantly higher in immunotherapy (standard median difference=0.323; 95% CI=0.110–0.536; p=0.003). However, 1-year progression-free survival was not remarkably different between immunotherapy and control groups (HR=0.94; 95% CI=0.74–1.18; p=0.59). Specific immunotherapy demonstrated remarkable improvement in survival of patients with glioma and could be a considerable choice of treatment in the future. Despite the current promising results, further high-quality randomized controlled trials are required to approve immunotherapeutic approaches as the standard of care and the front-line treatment for glioma.

Download Full-text