Development and adaptations of the Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA) scale: a systematic review.

The Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA) score has the best accuracy among prognostic scales for patients with brain metastases (BM). A wide range of GPA-derived scales have been established to different types of primary tumor BM. However, there is a high variability between them, and their characteristics have not been described altogether yet. We aim to summarize the features of the existent GPA-derived scales and to compare their predictor factors and their uses in clinical setting. Medline was searched from inception until January 2023 to identify studies related to the development, update, or validation of GPA. The initial search yielded 1,083 results. 16 original studies and 16 validation studies were included, comprising a total of 33,348 patients. 13 different scales were assessed, including: GPA, Diagnosis-Specific GPA, Extracranial Score, Lung-molGPA, Updated Renal GPA, Updated Gastrointestinal GPA, Modified Breast GPA, Integrated Melanoma GPA, Melanoma Mol GPA, Sarcoma GPA, Hepatocellular Carcinoma GPA, Colorectal Cancer GPA, and Uterine Cancer GPA. The most prevalent prognostic predictors were age, Karnofsky Performance Status, number of BM, and presence or absence of extracranial metastases. Treatment modalities consisted of whole brain radiation therapy, stereotactic radiosurgery, surgery, cranial radiotherapy, gamma knife radiosurgery, and BRAF inhibitor therapy. Median survival rates with no treatment and with a specific treatment ranged from 6.1 weeks to 33 months and from 3.1 to 21 months, respectively. Original GPA and GPA-derived scales are valid prognostic tools, but with heterogeneous survival results when compared to each other. More studies are needed to improve scientific evidence of these scales.

Dual orexin receptor antagonists for the treatment of insomnia: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have shown that dual orexin receptor antagonists (DORAs) are effective in the treatment of chronic insomnia. However, the superiority of one particular DORA over the others remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To perform a network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of different DORAs in patients with chronic insomnia. METHODS: The Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases were searched for RCTs that compared DORA with placebo in patients ≥ 18 years of age with a diagnosis of insomnia disorder. We pooled outcomes for wake time after sleep onset (WASO), latency to persistent sleep (LPS), total sleep time (TST), and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: We included 10 RCTs with 7,806 patients, 4,849 of whom received DORAs as the intervention. Overall, we found that DORAs were associated with the improvement of all analyzed efficacy outcomes. Concerning TST, an apparent dose-dependent pattern was noticed, with higher doses relating to a longer TST. Lemborexant 10mg provided the largest reduction in WASO (at month 1) in minutes (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -25.40; 95% confidence interval [95%CI] = -40.02--10.78), followed by suvorexant 20/15mg (SMD = -25.29; 95%CI = -36.42--14.15), which also appeared to provide the largest decrease in long-term WASO (SMD = -23.70; 95%CI = -35.89--11.51). The most frequent AEs were somnolence, nasopharyngitis, and headache, with rates of up to 14.8%. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that DORAs are associated with greater efficacy when compared with placebo in the treatment of insomnia, a complex 24-hour sleep disorder. Additionally, dosing might play an important role in the management of chronic insomnia.

ANTECEDENTES: Inúmeros ensaios clínicos randomizados (ECRs) têm demonstrado que os antagonistas duais do receptor de orexina (dual orexin receptor antagonists, DORAs, em inglês) são eficazes no tratamento da insônia. Contudo, restam dúvidas quanto à superioridade de um DORA com relação aos outros. OBJETIVO: Realizar uma meta-análise em rede para avaliar a eficácia de diferentes DORAs em pacientes com insônia. MéTODOS: Foram feitas buscas nas bases de dados Medline, Embase e Cochrane Central por ECRs que comparassem DORAs e placebo em pacientes ≥ 18 anos de idade com diagnóstico de insônia. Os seguintes desfechos foram selecionados: tempo desperto após o início do sono (wake time after sleep onset, WASO, em inglês), latência para o sono persistente (latency to persistent sleep, LPS, em inglês), tempo total de sono (total sleep time, TST, em inglês), e efeitos adversos (EAs). RESULTADOS: Incluímos 10 ensaios clínicos com 7,806 pacientes, 4,849 dos quais receberam DORAs como intervenção. Os DORAs foram associados à melhoria de todos os desfechos de eficácia analisados. Em relação ao TST, um aparente padrão de dependência da dose foi identificado, com doses maiores se associando a um maior TST. Lemborexant 10 mg proporcionou a maior redução em WASO (no primeiro mês) em minutos (diferença padronizada das médias [standardized mean difference, [SMD], em inglês) = -25.40; intervalo de confiança de 95% [IC95%] = -40.02­-10.78), seguido de suvorexant 20/15mg (SMD = -25.29; IC95% = -36.42­-14.15), o qual também proporcionou a maior diminuição em WASO no longo prazo (SMD = -23.70; IC95% = -35.89­-11.51). Os EAs mais frequentes foram sonolência, nasofaringite e cefaleia, com taxas de até 14.8%. CONCLUSãO: Nossos resultados sugerem que os DORAs estão associados a uma maior eficácia quando comparados com placebo no tratamento da insônia, um complexo transtorno do sono de 24 horas. Além disso, a dosagem pode desempenhar um papel importante no manejo da insônia crônica.

Dual orexin receptor antagonists for the treatment of insomnia: systematic review and network meta-analysis / Antagonistas duais do receptor de orexina para o tratamento da insônia: revisão sistemática e metanálise em rede

Abstract Background Several randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have shown that dual orexin receptor antagonists (DORAs) are effective in the treatment of chronic insomnia. However, the superiority of one particular DORA over the others remains unclear. Objective To perform a network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of different DORAs in patients with chronic insomnia. Methods The Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases were searched for RCTs that compared DORA with placebo in patients ≥ 18 years of age with a diagnosis of insomnia disorder. We pooled outcomes for wake time after sleep onset (WASO), latency to persistent sleep (LPS), total sleep time (TST), and adverse events (AEs). Results We included 10 RCTs with 7,806 patients, 4,849 of whom received DORAs as the intervention. Overall, we found that DORAs were associated with the improvement of all analyzed efficacy outcomes. Concerning TST, an apparent dose-dependent pattern was noticed, with higherdoses relating to a longerTST. Lemborexant 10mg provided the largest reduction in WASO (at month 1) in minutes (standardized mean difference [SMD] = −25.40; 95% confidence interval [95%CI] = −40.02- −10.78), followed by suvorexant 20/15mg (SMD = −25.29; 95%CI = −36.42- −14.15), which also appeared to provide the largest decrease in long-term WASO (SMD = −23.70; 95%CI = −35.89- −11.51). The most frequent AEs were somnolence, nasopharyngitis, and headache, with rates of up to 14.8%. Conclusion Our results suggest that DORAs are associated with greater efficacy when compared with placebo in the treatment of insomnia, a complex 24-hour sleep disorder. Additionally, dosing might play an important role in the management of chronic insomnia.

Resumo Antecedentes Inúmeros ensaios clínicos randomizados (ECRs) têm demonstrado que os antagonistas duais do receptor de orexina (dual orexin receptor antagonists, DORAs, em inglês) são eficazes no tratamento da insônia. Contudo, restam dúvidas quanto à superioridade de um DORA com relação aos outros. Objetivo Realizar uma meta-análise em rede para avaliar a eficácia de diferentes DORAs em pacientes com insônia. Métodos Foram feitas buscas nas bases de dados Medline, Embase e Cochrane Central por ECRs que comparassem DORAs e placebo em pacientes ≥ 18 anos de idade com diagnóstico de insônia. Os seguintes desfechos foram selecionados: tempo desperto após o início do sono (wake time after sleep onset, WASO, em inglês), latência para o sono persistente (latency to persistent sleep, LPS, em inglês), tempo total de sono (total sleep time, TST, em inglês), e efeitos adversos (EAs). Resultados Incluímos 10 ensaios clínicos com 7,806 pacientes, 4,849 dos quais receberam DORAs como intervenção. Os DORAs foram associados à melhoria de todos os desfechos de eficácia analisados. Em relação ao TST, um aparente padrão de dependência da dose foi identificado, com doses maiores se associando a um maior TST. Lemborexant 10 mg proporcionou a maior redução em WASO (no primeiro mês) em minutos (diferença padronizada das médias [standardized mean difference, [SMD], em inglês) = −25.40; intervalo de confiança de 95% [IC95%] = −40.02- −10.78), seguido de suvorexant 20/15mg (SMD = −25.29; IC95% = −36.42- −14.15), o qual também proporcionou a maior diminuição em WASO no longo prazo (SMD = −23.70; IC95% = −35.89- −11.51). Os EAs mais frequentes foram sonolência, nasofaringite e cefaleia, com taxas de até 14.8%. Conclusão Nossos resultados sugerem que os DORAs estão associados a uma maior eficácia quando comparados com placebo no tratamento da insónia, um complexo transtorno do sono de 24 horas. Além disso, a dosagem pode desempenhar um papel importante no manejo da insónia crônica.

Long-Term Safety and Effectiveness of Erenumab in Patients with Migraine: A Systematic Review and Single-Arm Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Several studies on use of erenumab for migraine treatment have been published over recent years. However, its long-term safety and effectiveness have not been consistently established in the literature yet. We aimed to perform a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the long-term safety and effectiveness of erenumab for the treatment of migraine headaches. METHODS: Long-term follow-up was defined as ≥ 1 year. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were systematically searched from inception to 14 June 2022 for studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Fourteen studies, comprising 3574 patients, were included. The total follow-up period ranged from 48 to 268 weeks (i.e., 1 year to 5.6 years). Pooled estimate rates for all adverse events (AEs) were 63% (95% CI 46-78); for serious AEs, 3% (95% CI 1-7); and for AEs leading to discontinuation of erenumab, 3% (95% CI 2-5). Reduction in monthly migraine days (MMDs) was -6.98 (95% CI -8.90 to -5.05) and in migraine-specific medication days (MSMDs) was - 6.09 (95% CI - 9.43 to - 2.75). More than half (57%; 95% CI 51-63) and around one-third (35%; 95% CI 28-42) of patients presented with reductions of ≥ 50% and ≥ 75% in MMDs, respectively. Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) score was decreased by -9.68 points (95% CI - 12.03 to - 7.34). Nine studies were considered of poor methodological quality and five of fair quality. CONCLUSIONS: Erenumab has a favorable safety profile, with a low incidence of serious AEs, and sustained efficacy over ≥1 year of follow-up in the treatment of migraine.