scholarly journals Recombinant Human Adenovirus-p53 Therapy for the Treatment of Oral Leukoplakia and Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review

Medicina ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 57 (5) ◽  
pp. 438
Author(s):  
Jagadish Hosmani ◽  
Shazia Mushtaq ◽  
Shahabe Saquib Abullais ◽  
Hussain Mohammed Almubarak ◽  
Khalil Assiri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Oral Cancer ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Oral Leukoplakia ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Therapeutic Effects ◽  
The World

Background and Objectives: Oral cancer is the 6th most common cancer in the world and oral leukoplakia is an oral potentially malignant disorder that could develop into oral cancer. This systematic review focusses on randomized clinical trials for recombinant adenovirus p-53 (rAD-p53) therapy for the treatment of oral leukoplakia and cancer. Materials and Methods: We searched for research articles on various databases such as Pubmed/Medline, Embase, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infra-structure), Springerlink, cochrane and Web of sciences from 2003 to 2020. MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms were used for the search. Inclusion criteria included original research, randomized clinical trials and articles only in English language. Exclusion criteria were any articles that were not research articles, not randomized trials, non-human studies, etc. The articles were further graded on the Jadad scale. Results: 578 articles were assessed from various databases; only 3 articles were found to be appropriate for this review. Thus, meta-analysis was not performed because of heterogeneity and lack of data. In the three studies, whether rAD-p53 was used as a standalone therapy or with other therapies, there was a beneficial effect of the therapy. Furthermore, there were no serious adverse events and the only adverse events reported were fever, pain at the local injection site, flu-like symptoms and lowered WBC count. Conclusions: Thus, we can conclude that this therapy has a potential for beneficial therapeutic effects and further clinical trials with more patients need to be performed to get better understanding of the effect of rAD-p53 therapy, which probably will pave the way to its approval in other parts of the world.

675 FUNDOPLICATION VERSUS ORAL PROTON PUMP INHIBITORS FOR GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX DISEASE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIALS

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Luca Schiliró Tristão ◽  
Francisco Tustumi ◽  
Guilherme Tavares ◽  
Letícia Nogueira Datrino ◽  
Maria Carolina Andrade Serafim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease ◽  
Gastroesophageal Reflux ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Proton Pump ◽  
Reflux Disease ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Intake

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.

scholarly journals Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials of Acupressure Therapy for Primary Dysmenorrhea

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hui-ru Jiang ◽  
Shuang Ni ◽  
Jin-long Li ◽  
Miao-miao Liu ◽  
Ji Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Statistical Analysis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Primary Dysmenorrhea ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Central Register

The evidence of acupressure is limited in the management of dysmenorrhea. To evaluate the efficacy of acupressure in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we searched MEDLINE, the Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases from inception until March 2012. Two reviewers independently selected articles and extracted data. Statistical analysis was performed with RevMan 5.1 software. Eight RCTs were identified from the retrieved 224 relevant records. Acupressure improved pain measured with VAS (−1.41 cm 95% CI [−1.61, −1.21]), SF-MPQ at the 3-month followup (WMD −2.33, 95% CI [−4.11, −0.54]) and 6-month followup (WMD −4.67, 95% CI [−7.30, −2.04]), and MDQ at the 3-month followup (WMD −2.31, 95% CI [−3.74, −0.87]) and 6-month followup (WMD −4.67, 95% CI [−7.30, −2.04]). All trials did not report adverse events. These results were limited by the methodological flaws of trials.

scholarly journals Long-acting muscarinic antagonists vs. long-acting β 2 agonists in COPD exacerbations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 302-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Israel Silva Maia ◽  
Mariângela Pimentel Pincelli ◽  
Victor Figueiredo Leite ◽  
João Amadera ◽  
Anna Maria Buehler
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Therapeutic Effects ◽  
Muscarinic Antagonists ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Exacerbation Rate ◽  
Copd Exacerbations ◽  
Long Acting

ABSTRACT Objective: To determine whether long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) provide superior therapeutic effects over long-acting β2 agonists (LABAs) for preventing COPD exacerbations. Methods: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials involving patients with stable, moderate to severe COPD according to the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease criteria, treated with a LAMA (i.e., tiotropium bromide, aclidinium, or glycopyrronium), followed for at least 12 weeks and compared with controls using a LABA in isolation or in combination with a corticosteroid. Results: A total of 2,622 studies were analyzed for possible inclusion on the basis of their title and abstract; 9 studies (17,120 participants) were included in the analysis. In comparison with LABAs, LAMAs led to a greater decrease in the exacerbation rate ratio (relative risk [RR] = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.84-0.93]; a lower proportion of patients who experienced at least one exacerbation (RR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.87-0.94; p < 0.00001); a lower risk of exacerbation-related hospitalizations (RR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.69-0.87; p < 0.0001); and a lower number of serious adverse events (RR = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.67-0.96; p = 0.0002). The overall quality of evidence was moderate for all outcomes. Conclusions: The major findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis were that LAMAs significantly reduced the exacerbation rate (exacerbation episodes/year), as well as the number of exacerbation episodes, of hospitalizations, and of serious adverse events.

scholarly journals The safety, tolerability and mortality reduction efficacy of remdesivir; based on randomized clinical trials, observational and case studies reported safety outcomes: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 204209862110425
Author(s):  
Chenchula Santenna ◽  
Kota Vidyasagar ◽  
Krishna Chaitanya Amarneni ◽  
Sai Nikhila Ghanta ◽  
Balakrishnan Sadasivam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Antiviral Drug ◽  
Mortality Reduction ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Grade 3

Introduction: Remdesivir, an experimental antiviral drug has shown to inhibit severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), both in vitro and in vivo. The present systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to quantify the safety and tolerability of remdesivir, based on safety outcome findings from randomized controlled trials, observational studies and case reports of remdesivir in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Methods: We have performed a systematic search in the PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library using specific keywords such as ‘COVID-19’ OR ‘SARS CoV-2’ AND ‘Remdesivir’. The study endpoints include total adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), grade 3 and grade 4 AEs, mortality and drug tolerability. Statistical analysis was carried out by using Revman 5.4 software. Results: Total 15 studies were included for systematic review, but only 5 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) ( n = 13,622) were included for meta-analysis. Visual inspection of the forest plots for remdesivir 10-day versus placebo and remdesivir 10-day versus 5-day groups revealed that there is a significant difference in SAEs [10-day remdesivir versus control (odds ratio [OR] = 0.55, 0.40–0.74) p = 0.0001; I2 = 0%; 10-day remdesivir versus 5-day remdesivir (OR = 0.56, 0.38–0.84) p = 0.005; I2 = 13%]. In grade 4 AEs, there is a significant difference in 10-day remdesivir versus control (OR = 0.32, 0.19–0.54) p = 0.0001; I2 = 0%, but not in comparison to 5-day remdesivir (OR = 0.95, 0.59–1.54) p = 0.85; I2 = 0%. But there is no significant difference in grade 3 AEs [remdesivir 10 day versus control (OR = 0.81, 0.59–1.11) p = 0.19; I2 = 0%; 10-day remdesivir versus 5-day remdesivir (OR = 1.24, 0.86–1.80) p = 0.25; I2 = 0%], in total AEs [remdesivir 10 day versus control (OR = 1.07, 0.66–1.75) p = 0.77; I2 = 79%; remdesivir 10 day versus 5 day (OR = 1.08, 0.70–1.68) p = 0.73; I2 = 54%)], in mortality [10-day remdesivir versus control (OR = 0.93, 0.80–1.08) p = 0.32; I2 = 0%; 10-day remdesivir versus 5-day remdesivir (OR = 1.39, 0.73–2.62) p = 0.32; I2 = 0%)] and tolerability [remdesivir 10 day versus control (OR = 1.05, 0.51–2.18) p = 0.89; I2 = 65%, 10-day remdesivir versus 5-day remdesivir (OR = 0.86, 0.18–4.01) p = 0.85; I2 = 78%]. Discussion & Conclusion: Ten-day remdesivir was a safe antiviral agent but not tolerable over control in the hospitalized COVID-19 patients with a need of administration cautiousness for grade 3 AEs. There was no added benefit of 10- or 5-day remdesivir in reducing mortality over placebo. To avoid SAEs, we suggest for prior monitoring of liver function tests (LFT), renal function tests (RFT), complete blood count (CBC) and serum electrolytes for those with preexisting hepatic and renal impairments and patients receiving concomitant hepatotoxic or nephrotoxic drugs. Furthermore, a number of RCTs of remdesivir in COVID-19 patients are suggested. Plain Language Summary Ten-day remdesivir is a safe antiviral drug with common adverse events in comparison to placebo. The rate of serious adverse events and grade 3 adverse events were significantly lower in 10-day remdesivir in comparison to placebo/5-day remdesivir. There was no significant difference in the rate of tolerability and mortality reduction in 10-day remdesivir over placebo/5-day remdesivir. There were no new safety signals reported in vulnerable populations, paediatric, pregnant and lactating women.

THE ROLE OF DEXAMETHASONE DOSING IN THE TREATMENT OF COVID-19 AND ACUTE RESPIRATORY DISTRESS SYNDROME (ARDS): A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

2021 ◽  
pp. 21-26
Author(s):  
Ж.К. УТАРОВ ◽  
К.К. КУРАКБАЕ
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Distress Syndrome ◽  
Lung Ventilation ◽  
Cytokine Storm ◽  
Main Effect ◽  
The World

Новый тип коронавируса был обнаружен в декабре 2019 года в провинции Ухань Китайской Народной Республики и получил называние SARS-CoV-2, а болезнь назвался COVID-19. Болезнь проявляется многими клиническими симптомами (лихорадка, кашель, одышка, повторяющийся озноб, мышечные боли, головная боль, боль в горле, потеря обоняния (аносмия) и / или вкуса (агевзия) и диарея), но в основном повреждает верхние и нижние дыхательные пути. Поскольку COVID-19 в основном вызывает вирусное поражение легких, многие пациенты попадают в больницу в тяжелом состоянии с острым респираторным дистресссиндромом (ОРДС). Ухудшение состояния при вирусной пневмонии идёт быстрыми темпами, и у многих пациентов уже в течение нескольких часов развивается дыхательная недостаточность, требующая немедленной респираторной поддержки. Учитывая, что новый тип коронавируса пришел в нашу жизнь на десятилетия, уже сейчас необходимо рассмотреть новые направления лечения. В настоящее время рассматриваются различные варианты лечения с целью полного уничтожения вируса или прекращения его дальнейшего развития, в том числе препарат дексаметазон, принадлежащий к группе глюкокортикоидов, который продемонстрировал основную эффективность. На сегодняшний день проведено несколько рандомизированных клинических испытаний (РКИ) с применением дексаметазона, но оптимальная доза и продолжительность применения препарата до сих пор не определены. Currently, a lot of research is being conducted using various medicines to treat COVID-19 disease, which puts the world at a standstill. In particular, we are talking about the drug dexamethasone, which has the main effect on ensuring that patients are not transferred to the intensive care unit and are not connected to articial lung ventilation. Although several randomized clinical trials have been conducted, the dose of dexamethasone has not yet been rened to suppress or stop the cytokine storm.

scholarly journals Ixazomib Based Regimens in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 35-35
Author(s):  
Anum Javaid ◽  
Faryal Razzaq ◽  
Muhammad Ashar Ali ◽  
Muhammad Abu Zar ◽  
Atif Sohail ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Placebo Group ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase Ii Trial ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Newly Diagnosed

Introduction: Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable malignancy, and clinical trials with newer agents have shown improved patient outcomes. Ixazomib (Ixa) is a proteasome inhibitor and induces apoptosis in cancer cells. It is commonly used with immunomodulators for the treatment of MM. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of Ixazomib alone and in combination with other drugs for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Methods: A literature search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Web of Science, and clinicaltrials.gov. We used the following MeSH and Emtree terms; "ixazomib" AND "Multiple Myeloma" from inception till 06/05/2020. We screened 1,558 articles and included 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (N=901) and 12 non-randomized clinical trials (NRCT) (N=632). We excluded case reports, case series, preclinical trials, review articles, observational studies, meta-analysis, and ongoing clinical trials that did not report interim efficacy outcomes. We used the R programming language (version 4.0.2) to conduct a meta-analysis. Results: In 15 clinical trials (N=1533), Ixa based regimens were used in patients with age range of 39-92 years. (Table 1) In 3 clinical trials (N=170), Ixa with Lenalidomide (Len) and dexamethasone (Dex) yielded a pooled overall response rate (ORR) of 90% (95% CI=0.82-0.94, I2=32%), a pooled complete response (CR) of 23% (95% CI=0.16-0.32, I2=24%) and a pooled ≥very good partial response and better (≥VGPR) of 39% (95% CI=0.24-0.57, I2 =76%) when used as induction therapy for NDMM patients. As consolidation therapy (N=88), pooled ORR was 91% (95% CI=0.79-0.97, I2=0), pooled CR was 36% (95% CI=0.27-0.47, I2=0) and pooled ≥VGPR was 70% (95% CI=0.53-0.84, I2=60%). (Fig 1-3) In 5 clinical trials (N=233), Ixa + cyclophosphamide (Cyc) + Dex yielded a pooled ORR, CR, and ≥VGPR of 76% (95% CI=0.70-0.81, I2 =0), 12% (95% CI=0.07-0.20, I2=44%), and 25% (95% CI=0.14-0.39, I2=78%), respectively. (Fig 1-3) The lower dose of Cyc 300mg/m2 had similar efficacy as 400mg/m2 with better safety profile in elderly patients. In a RCT (N=175) of Ixa with multiple combinations, Ixa + Dex yielded ORR 55% (95% CI=0.40-0.69), CR 14% (95% CI=0.07-0.28) and ≥VGPR 24% (95% CI=0.13-0.39). Ixa+ thalidomide (Thal) + Dex fostered ORR 82% (95% CI=0.70-0.90), CR 15% (95% CI=0.08-0.26), and VGPR 43% (95% CI=0.31-0.55). Ixa + bendamustine + Dex yielded ORR of 73% (95% CI=0.41-0.91), CR 9% (95% CI=0.01-0.44), and ≥VGPR 27% (95% CI=0.09-0.59). In one clinical trial (N=53), Ixa + melphalan (Mel) + prednisone (Pred) combination yielded pooled ORR, CR, and ≥VGPR of 66% (95% CI=0.52-0.77), 13% (95% CI=0.06-0.25), and 30% (95% CI=0.19-0.44), respectively. In a phase II trial (N=40), Ixa + daratumumab (Dara) + Len + Dex yielded an ORR, CR and ≥VGPR of 97% (95% CI=0.84-1), 15% (95% CI=0.07-0.28), and 35% (95% CI=0.22-0.51) respectively. (Fig 1-3) In a phase III RCT by Dimopholous et al. (N=656), Ixa maintenance therapy after stem cell transplant (SCT) yielded an ORR, CR, and ≥VGPR of 76%, 15%, and 54%, respectively. They observed 28% reduction in the risk of progression or death with Ixa vs. placebo, median progression free survival (mPFS) was 26.5 months (95% CI 23·7-33·8) vs 21·3 months [18·0-24·7]; hazard ratio 0·72, 95% CI 0·58-0·89; p=0·0023). Second malignancies were 3% in both ixazomib and placebo group. 27% of the patients in ixazomib group and 20% patients in placebo group experienced serious adverse events. In a clinical trial on unfit and frail patients (N=46) treated with Ixa + daratumumab (Dara) + Dex, pooled ORR and ≥VGPR were 83% (95% CI=0.69-0.91, I2=0), and 33% (95% CI=0.21-0.47, I2=0), respectively. (Fig 1-3) In the phase II trial, ORR, CR, and VGPR with ixazomib and lenalidomide were 64%, 26%, and 53%, respectively. Conclusion: Ixa in combination with Len, Dex, Cyc, Dara, Mel, Pred is effective in the treatment of NDMM patients. In early phase trials, Ixa with Dara, Len, and Dexa showed the highest overall response as induction therapy. Ixazomib maintainance therapy prolongs PFS after SCT as compared to placebo and represents an additional option for post SCT maintainace therapy in NDMM patiens. The safety profile of Ixa was acceptable with most commonly encountered adverse events were hematological including neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. Additional multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these results. Disclosures Anwer: Incyte, Seattle Genetics, Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie Pharma, Astellas Pharma, Celegene, Millennium Pharmaceuticals.: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

scholarly journals Vaccines to prevent COVID-19: a protocol for a living systematic review with network meta-analysis including individual patient data (The LIVING VACCINE Project)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
STEVEN KWASI KORANG ◽  
Sophie Juul ◽  
Emil Eik Nielsen ◽  
Joshua Feinberg ◽  
Faiza Siddiqui ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Viral Vector ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Harmful Effects

Abstract Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) which has rapidly spread worldwide. Several human randomized clinical trials assessing potential vaccines are currently underway. There is an urgent need for a living systematic review that continuously assesses the beneficial and harmful effects of all available vaccines for COVID-19.Methods/design: We will conduct a living systematic review based on searches of major medical databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify relevant randomized clinical trials. We will update the literature search once a week to continuously assess if new evidence is available. Two review authors will independently extract data and conduct risk of bias assessments. We will include randomized clinical trials comparing any vaccine aiming to prevent COVID-19 (including but not limited to messenger RNA; DNA; non-replicating viral vector; replicating viral vector; inactivated virus; protein subunit; dendritic cell; other vaccines) with any comparator (placebo; ‘active placebo’; no intervention; standard care; an ‘active’ intervention; another vaccine for COVID-19) for participants in all age groups. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality; a diagnosis of COVID-19; and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be quality of life, and non-serious adverse events. The living systematic review will include aggregate data meta-analyses, Trial Sequential Analyses, network meta-analyses, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Risk of bias will be assessed with domains, our eight-step procedure to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) will assess certainty of evidence. Observational studies describing harms identified during the search for trials will also be included and analyzed separately. Discussion: COVID-19 has become a pandemic with substantial mortality. A living systematic review assessing the beneficial and harmful effects of different vaccines is urgently needed. This living systematic review will regularly inform best practice in vaccine prevention and clinical research of this highly prevalent disease.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020196492

scholarly journals The effects of adding glucocorticosteroids to standard care for children with sepsis. A systematic review of randomized clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Kwasi Korang ◽  
Sanam Safi ◽  
Christian Gluud ◽  
Janus C Jakobsen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Sequential Analysis ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Trial Sequential Analysis ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background: Glucocorticosteroids are widely used to treat severe sepsis in pediatric intensive care units. However, the evidence on the clinical effects is unclear.Objective: To assess the benefits and harms of glucocorticosteroids for children with sepsis. Data Sources: We conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) (PROSPERO CRD42017054341). We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, SCI-Expanded, and more. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of adding glucocorticosteroids to standard care for children with sepsis. Data Extraction: Two independent reviewers screened studies and extracted data. Evidence was assessed by GRADE according to our published protocol.Data Synthesis: We included 24 trials randomizing 3073 participants. Meta-analyses showed no evidence of an effect of adding glucocorticosteroids for children with sepsis with a mixed focus for any of our outcomes. Meta-analyses suggested evidence of a beneficial effect of dexamethasone for children with meningitis when assessing serious adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.86; P = 0.001, very low certainty of evidence) and ototoxicity (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.88; P = 0.007, low certainty of evidence). TSAs showed that we did not have sufficient data to confirm or reject these results. We found insufficient evidence to confirm or reject an effect on mortality or our other outcomes. No trials reported quality of life or organ failure. Most trials were at high risks of bias. We found high clinical heterogeneity between participants. None of our TSAs showed benefits, harms or futility. Conclusions: Generally, we found no evidence of an effect of glucocorticosteroids for children with sepsis without meningitis. Dexamethasone for sepsis in children due to meningitis may decrease serious adverse events and ototoxicity.

scholarly journals First-Line Systemic Treatment Strategies for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wenfeng Liu ◽  
Bing Quan ◽  
Shenxin Lu ◽  
Bei Tang ◽  
Miao Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
First Line ◽  
Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document