RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Highly active (HA) relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) is associated with frequent relapses and high burden of disease/disability. Natalizumab is licensed for HA RRMS, including rapidly evolving severe (RES) (≥2 relapses in previous year) and sub-optimally treated (SOT) (≥1 relapse in previous year despite treatment) populations. However, there is limited RCT evidence in the SOT subpopulation. OBJECTIVE: To review the non-RCT evidence for natalizumab in SOT HA RRMS. METHODS: Databases were searched to January 2023 for non-randomised studies of natalizumab in HA RRMS. Studies in patients with ≥1 relapse during previous treatment were eligible for inclusion. Meta-analyses were conducted to compare natalizumab with platform and higher efficacy disease-modifying therapies, with sensitivity analysis restricted to studies of low risk of bias. RESULTS: Included comparative studies (n = 16) showed natalizumab had lower relapse rates, disease activity and MRI (radiological) outcomes compared with platform and higher efficacy therapy. Case series (n = 11) showed natalizumab was associated with high rates of freedom from relapse and clinical/radiological disease activity and reductions in annualised relapse rate and disability progression. CONCLUSIONS: Literature reviewed indicates that natalizumab is more effective than other included treatments for SOT patients. Findings were consistent with studies in the broad HA RRMS population, suggesting that natalizumab may have similar efficacy for SOT and RES HA RRMS.
Assuntos
Fatores Imunológicos , Esclerose Múltipla Recidivante-Remitente , Natalizumab , Humanos , Fatores Imunológicos/uso terapêutico , Esclerose Múltipla Recidivante-Remitente/tratamento farmacológico , Esclerose Múltipla Recidivante-Remitente/diagnóstico por imagem , Natalizumab/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence available for renal denervation (RDN) in uncontrolled arterial hypertension. Twenty-five RCTs met the eligibility criteria for the systematic review, and 16 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The results of the random effects meta-analysis estimated a mean difference of -8.5âmmHg [95% confidence interval (CI) -13.5 to -3.6] for office SBP, -3.6âmmHg (95% CI -5.2 to -2.0) for 24âh SBP and -3.9âmmHg (95% CI -5.6 to -2.2) for ambulatory daytime SBP in favour of RDN compared with control (medication and/or sham-only) at primary follow-up. Similarly favourable results were observed across a range of prespecified subgroup analyses, including treatment-resistant hypertension. This meta-analysis suggests that the use of RDN in uncontrolled hypertension leads to consistent reductions in blood pressure. Reductions appear to be statistically consistent in the presence or absence of medications and in populations resistant to the use of three medications.
Assuntos
Hipertensão , Rim , Humanos , Hipertensão/cirurgia , Hipertensão/fisiopatologia , Rim/inervação , Pressão Sanguínea , Denervação/métodos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Resultado do Tratamento , Anti-Hipertensivos/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
A systematic review was undertaken to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of lurasidone, brexpiprazole and cariprazine (selected because of a shared safety profile) with each other or placebo in adult patients with schizophrenia. Key outcomes included: Positive and Negative Syndrome Scales (PANSS), Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) scores and cardiovascular and metabolic parameters. A feasibility assessment evaluated the trials' suitability for inclusion in a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). Random effects models were used. In total, 1138 records were identified and 19 RCTs contributed to the NMA. Lurasidone doses of 160 mg performed best in terms of change in PANSS and CGI-S scores at 6 weeks, with stronger evidence when compared with brexpiprazole than cariprazine. The safety outcomes were variable; for all treatments, the 95% credible intervals usually contained 'no difference'. Active treatments were associated with lower odds of discontinuation due to any cause, and higher odds of experiencing any adverse event. Lurasidone was comparable to brexpiprazole and cariprazine for efficacy and safety outcomes assessed at 6 weeks, with the 160 mg dose being superior for the change in PANSS and CGI-S outcomes. The lurasidone results were relatively consistent across doses compared with brexpiprazole and cariprazine.
Assuntos
Cloridrato de Lurasidona , Humanos , Cloridrato de Lurasidona/efeitos adversos , Metanálise em RedeRESUMO
In the absence of head-to-head trials of first-line treatments for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), synthesis of available evidence is needed. We conducted a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in patients with stage IV NSCLC and high programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. Patients with other-stage NSCLC or without PD-L1 expression and populations with < 80% stage IV NSCLC were excluded. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and treatment-related adverse events. English records from MEDLINE and Embase published through October 2020 were eligible, supplemented by hand searches of other sources. Three evidence networks were constructed based on histology (mixed, squamous, non-squamous). OS and PFS results were analyzed applying Bayesian fractional polynomial random-effects models. Hazard ratios over time with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) and expected differences in OS and PFS between each cancer immunotherapy regimen and the chemotherapy common comparator were generated. Seventeen clinical trials were included after screening 32,527 records. Heterogeneity and risk of bias were generally low across trials. In the mixed-histology network of PD-L1-high patients, expected OS was significantly longer with atezolizumab (estimated difference: 10.4 months [95% CrI: 1.9, 18.2]), pembrolizumab (7.2 [2.2, 12.3]), and cemiplimab (13.0 [4.2, 21.0]) versus chemotherapy but not with nivolumab (3.5 [-2.5, 10.6]) or nivolumab plus ipilimumab (6.7 [-0.5, 14.2]) versus chemotherapy. OS improvements were not significant compared with chemotherapy for any regimen in the squamous and non-squamous networks, except pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in the non-squamous network. All regimens showed significantly longer expected PFS versus chemotherapy in the non-squamous network, whereas the increases were not significant in the mixed or squamous networks. ORR was significantly higher with pembrolizumab and cemiplimab versus chemotherapy in the mixed-histology network, with sintilimab in the non-squamous network, and with combination regimens, including pembrolizumab or atezolizumab, in the squamous and non-squamous networks, except with atezolizumab plus carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab. Survival and safety versus chemotherapy were generally similar across cancer immunotherapies and histology networks. These findings may support treatment decisions for patients with high PD-L1 status receiving first-line treatment for NSCLC.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Rapid and widespread increases in carbapenem resistance (CR) necessitate identification of risk factors to guide appropriate interventions. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify risk factors for CR Gram-negative infection through a systematic literature review. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE (via OvidSP and PubMed) and Embase (via OvidSP) databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Prospective or retrospective cohort and case-control studies reporting quantitative data on risk factors associated with infections due to CR Gram-negative pathogens in hospitalized patients were eligible. PARTICIPANTS: Studies included hospitalized patients with CR infection caused by Gram-negative bacterial pathogens (Enterobacterales and non-fermenters). METHODS: Searches were conducted in January 2018/December 2019 to identify studies published since 2007. Risk factor data were extracted and grouped by factor. The primary metric was proportion of studies reporting a significant association with CR infection for each factor. RESULTS: In total, 92 studies were identified. Risk factors most frequently reported as significantly associated with CR infection (>10 studies) were previous antibiotic use (91.1%; 72/79 studies); previous carbapenem use (82.6%; 57/69); previous colonization (72.7%; 8/11); mechanical ventilation (66.7%; 36/54); previous intensive care unit stay (64.4%; 38/59); dialysis (61.1%; 11/18); catheter (58.0%; 40/69); length of stay in hospital (54.5%; 30/55); comorbidities (52.7%; 39/74); APACHE II (51.7%; 15/29); and intubation (51.4%; 18/35). Risk factors were mostly consistent across different species and sites of infection. CONCLUSIONS: Several variables, particularly previous antibiotic use, are strong risk factors for CR infection. Interventions to mitigate against CR infection should target these factors.
Assuntos
Carbapenêmicos/farmacologia , Infecção Hospitalar/microbiologia , Farmacorresistência Bacteriana , Bactérias Gram-Negativas/isolamento & purificação , Infecções por Bactérias Gram-Negativas/microbiologia , Carbapenêmicos/uso terapêutico , Estudos de Casos e Controles , Infecção Hospitalar/tratamento farmacológico , Diálise/efeitos adversos , Bactérias Gram-Negativas/efeitos dos fármacos , Infecções por Bactérias Gram-Negativas/tratamento farmacológico , Humanos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Tempo de Internação , Estudos Prospectivos , Respiração Artificial/efeitos adversos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de RiscoRESUMO
We investigated the impact of appropriate versus inappropriate initial antimicrobial therapy on the clinical outcomes of patients with severe bacterial infections as part of a systematic review and meta-analyses assessing the impact of delay in appropriate antimicrobial therapy. Literature searches of MEDLINE and Embase, conducted on 24 July 2018, identified studies published after 2007 reporting the impact of delay in appropriate antibiotic therapy for hospitalised adult patients with bacterial infections. Results were statistically pooled for outcomes including mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS) and treatment failure. Subgroup analyses were explored by site of infection where data permitted. Inclusion criteria were met by 145 studies, of which 114 reported data on the impact of appropriate versus inappropriate initial therapy. In the pooled analysis, rates of mortality were significantly in favour of appropriate therapy [odds ratio (OR) = 0.44, 95% CI 0.38-0.50]. Across eight studies, LOS was shorter with appropriate therapy compared with inappropriate therapy [mean difference (MD) -2.54 days (95% CI -5.30 to 0.23)], but not significantly so. The incidence of treatment failure was significantly lower in patients who received appropriate therapy compared with patients who received inappropriate therapy (six studies: OR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.16-0.66) as was mean hospital costs (four studies: MD -7.38 thousand US$ or Euros, 95% CI -14.14 to -0.62). Initiation of appropriate versus inappropriate antibiotics can reduce mortality, reduce treatment failure and decrease LOS, highlighting the importance of broadspectrum empirical therapy and rapid diagnostics for early identification of the causative pathogen. [Study registration: PROSPERO: CRD42018104669].
Assuntos
Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Infecções Bacterianas/tratamento farmacológico , Infecções Bacterianas/mortalidade , Prescrição Inadequada/mortalidade , Falha de Tratamento , Bactérias/efeitos dos fármacos , Hospitalização , Humanos , Tempo de InternaçãoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that impacts quality of life and requires long-term treatment and effective symptom management. Interleukin-23 (IL-23) has emerged as a key player in the pathogenesis of psoriasis and tildrakizumab and guselkumab are both immunomodulatory agents that inhibit the p19 subunit of IL-23. In its pivotal Phase III trial, tildrakizumab demonstrated greater efficacy than etanercept in moderate-to-severe psoriasis. However, there are no head-to-head trials comparing tildrakizumab with guselkumab. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review and Bucher indirect comparison of tildrakizumab and guselkumab, using placebo as a common comparator. We searched MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE(R) Daily Epub Ahead of Print, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for Phase III randomized controlled trials between 1946 and November 2018. Inclusion criteria were adult patients ≥18 years with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis, and intervention with tildrakizumab or guselkumab compared to placebo or best supportive care. Outcomes included were severity of psoriasis as defined by the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 and PASI 90, frequency of serious adverse events (SAEs), and treatment discontinuations. Outcomes were evaluated at Weeks 12 to 16 and 24 to 28. Analysis was based on the intent-to-treat population and, for all outcomes, the number of events reported were analyzed as a proportion of the number of patients randomized to ensure consistency across trials. RESULTS: Overall, 154 unique records were identified. Five studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis; two tildrakizumab trials (reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2) and three guselkumab trials (VOYAGE 1, VOYAGE 2, and a Japanese study). There was no statistically significant difference between guselkumab and tildrakizumab for PASI 75, PASI 90, SAEs, and rate of discontinuations at either timepoint. CONCLUSION: This study assessed the comparative efficacy of tildrakizumab and guselkumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Limitations included the limited number of publications, imputation of placebo arm values for Weeks 24 to 28, and limited relevance of the Japanese study. This indirect comparison does not provide evidence that one treatment is superior to the other.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Patients with severe bacterial infections often experience delay in receiving appropriate treatment. Consolidated evidence of the impact of delayed appropriate treatment is needed to guide treatment and improve outcomes. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the impact of delayed appropriate antibacterial therapy on clinical outcomes in patients with severe bacterial infections? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Literature searches of MEDLINE and Embase, conducted on July 24, 2018, identified studies published after 2007 reporting the impact of delayed appropriate therapy on clinical outcomes for hospitalized adult patients with bacterial infections. Where appropriate, results were pooled and analyzed with delayed therapy modeled three ways: delay vs no delay in receiving appropriate therapy; duration of delay; and inappropriate vs appropriate initial therapy. This article reports meta-analyses on the effect of delay and duration of delay. RESULTS: The eligibility criteria were met by 145 studies, of which 37 contributed data to analyses of effect of delay. Mortality was significantly lower in patients receiving appropriate therapy without delay compared with those experiencing delay (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.45-0.72). Mortality was also lower in the no-delay group compared with the delay group in subgroups of studies reporting mortality at 20 to 30 days, during ICU stay, or in patients with bacteremia (OR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.43-0.76]; OR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.27-0.80]; and OR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.40-0.75], respectively). No difference was found in time to appropriate therapy between those who died and those who survived (P = .09), but heterogeneity between studies was high. INTERPRETATION: Avoiding delayed appropriate therapy is essential to reduce mortality in patients with severe bacterial infections. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO; No.: CRD42018104669; URL: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.
Assuntos
Antibacterianos/administração & dosagem , Infecções Bacterianas/tratamento farmacológico , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Esquema de Medicação , Humanos , Fatores de TempoRESUMO
Background: Colonoscopies are carried out for a range of reasons including for the detection of colon cancer and investigation of abdominal and bowel related symptoms. Inadequate preparation can increase the burden of repeat procedures.Methods: A systematic review aimed to identify the rate of repeat colonoscopies due to inadequate bowel preparation in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. The information obtained populated a decision analytic model to estimate the cost implications of inadequate bowel cleansing in the same five countries. The model explored scenarios by comparing one and two-litre polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation.Results: The systematic review identified 14 eligible studies reporting on the proportion of patients with inadequate bowel cleansing indicated for a repeat procedure. Data were available for Italy (27.5%-35.9%), Spain (63%) and the UK (24.5%) only. The decision analytic model demonstrates that improving the proportion of adequate bowel cleansing at first colonoscopy is likely to generate cost savings.Conclusions: Based on the available evidence, increasing the proportion of people who have adequate bowel cleansing at index colonoscopy will likely have financial benefits in Italy, Spain and the UK. A paucity of data, for France and Germany, limits the robustness of conclusions in these countries.
Assuntos
Neoplasias do Colo/diagnóstico , Colonoscopia/métodos , Polietilenoglicóis/administração & dosagem , Neoplasias do Colo/economia , Colonoscopia/economia , Custos e Análise de Custo , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , Polietilenoglicóis/economiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Ocrelizumab was approved for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) and primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS) by the US Food and Drug Administration in March 2017 and by the European Medicines Agency in January 2018. These approvals were based on two pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs), OPERA I and OPERA II, comparing ocrelizumab 600â¯mg with an active comparator, interferon ß-1a 44⯵g (Rebif), and the first trial with positive results in patients with PPMS, which compared ocrelizumab with placebo. However, direct evidence of the efficacy and safety of ocrelizumab in RMS compared with other disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) approved for RMS is not available from RCTs. In the absence of such RCTs, network meta-analyses (NMAs) were conducted to compare indirectly the relative efficacy and safety of ocrelizumab with all other approved DMTs for the treatment of RMS. METHODS: Systematic literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, trial registers, relevant conference websites and health technology assessment agency websites. Eligible RCTs evaluated approved treatments for multiple sclerosis (MS) in which more than 75% of patients had a relapsing form of MS. NMAs were conducted for four efficacy and three safety outcomes, and treatment hierarchies were generated for each outcome using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values. RESULTS: Results suggest that ocrelizumab has superior efficacy to 10 of the 17 treatments in the 12-week confirmed disability progression network and 12 of the 17 treatments in the annualized relapse rate network (both including placebo). The efficacy of ocrelizumab was comparable with the other treatments in both networks. In the serious adverse events and discontinuation due to adverse events networks, ocrelizumab demonstrated a safety profile comparable with all other treatments (including placebo). SUCRA values consistently ranked ocrelizumab among the most effective or tolerable treatments across all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that ocrelizumab has an efficacy superior to or comparable with all other currently approved DMTs across all endpoints analyzed, and a similar safety profile, indicating it offers a valuable package for the treatment of patients with RMS.
Assuntos
Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/farmacologia , Fatores Imunológicos/farmacologia , Esclerose Múltipla Recidivante-Remitente/tratamento farmacológico , Metanálise em Rede , HumanosRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the relative effectiveness of enzalutamide in chemotherapy-naive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer by conducting a systematic literature review and a network meta-analysis (NMA). METHODS: A systematic literature review identified randomized controlled trials comparing enzalutamide, abiraterone/prednisone, radium-223, sipuleucel-T, or docetaxel with each other or placebo in chemotherapy-naive or mixed populations (with and without prior chemotherapy) with asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Feasibility assessment evaluated the trials' suitability for NMA inclusion. The main outcomes were hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS). RESULTS: Searches of relevant bibliographic databases, trial registers, Web sites, and conference abstracts conducted in October 2014 identified 25,712 records. Ten randomized controlled trials were eligible for the NMA. Enzalutamide was superior to placebo for OS and rPFS (fixed-effects model). NMA results (fixed-effects model) showed no evidence of a difference between enzalutamide and abiraterone/prednisone (HR 0.95 [95% CrI 0.77-1.16]), sipuleucel-T (HR 1.07 [95% CrI 0.84-1.37]), or radium-223 (HR 1.10 [95% CrI 0.87-1.37]) for OS. HRs were similar for the random-effects model. Nevertheless, results (fixed-effects model) suggested that enzalutamide was superior to abiraterone/prednisone (HR 0.59 [95% CrI 0.48-0.72]) and sipuleucel-T (HR 0.32 [95% CrI 0.25-0.42]) for rPFS. Results also suggested superiority of enzalutamide versus placebo, abiraterone/prednisone, or sipuleucel-T for time to chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: For rPFS, the NMA suggests that enzalutamide is superior to abiraterone/prednisone and sipuleucel-T. There is no evidence of a statistically significant difference in OS between enzalutamide and abiraterone/prednisone, sipuleucel-T, or radium-223. Given the limitations in network construction and underlying assumptions made to complete these analyses, results should be interpreted with caution.
Assuntos
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/administração & dosagem , Doenças Assintomáticas/terapia , Neoplasias de Próstata Resistentes à Castração/diagnóstico , Neoplasias de Próstata Resistentes à Castração/tratamento farmacológico , Doenças Assintomáticas/epidemiologia , Humanos , Masculino , Neoplasias de Próstata Resistentes à Castração/epidemiologia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/métodos , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
Memokath-051 is a thermo-expandable, nickel-titanium alloy spiral stent used to treat ureteric obstruction resulting from malignant or benign strictures. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) selected Memokath-051 for evaluation. The company, PNN Medical, claimed Memokath-051 has clinical superiority and cost savings compared with double-J stents. It identified five studies reporting clinical evidence on Memokath-051 and constructed a de novo cost model comparing Memokath-051 to double-J stents. Results indicated that Memokath-051 generated cost savings of £4156 per patient over 2.5 years. The External Assessment Centre (EAC) critiqued the company's submission and completed substantial additional work. Sixteen studies were identified assessing Memokath-051 and all listed comparators in the scope (double-J stents, reconstructive surgery and metallic and alloy stents) except nephrostomy. Similar success rates were reported for Memokath-051 compared with double-J and Resonance stents and worse outcomes compared with other options with evidence available. The EAC updated the company's cost model structure and modified several inputs. The EAC's model estimated that Memokath-051 generated savings of at least £1619 per patient over 5 years compared with double-J stents, was cost neutral compared with other metallic stents and was cost saving compared with surgery up to month 55. Overall, Memokath-051 is likely to be cost saving in patients not indicated for reconstructive surgery and those expected to require a ureteral stent for at least 30 months. The Medical Technologies Advisory Committee (MTAC) reviewed the evidence and supported the case for adoption, issuing partially supportive recommendations published after public consultation as Medical Technologies Guidance 35.
Assuntos
Stents , Obstrução Ureteral/terapia , Cateteres Urinários , Análise Custo-Benefício , Humanos , Stents/economia , Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica , Resultado do Tratamento , Obstrução Ureteral/economia , Cateterismo Urinário/economia , Cateterismo Urinário/instrumentação , Cateteres Urinários/economiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Effective study identification is essential for conducting health research, developing clinical guidance and health policy and supporting health-care decision-making. Methodological search filters (combinations of search terms to capture a specific study design) can assist in searching to achieve this. OBJECTIVES: This project investigated the methods used to assess the performance of methodological search filters, the information that searchers require when choosing search filters and how that information could be better provided. METHODS: Five literature reviews were undertaken in 2010/11: search filter development and testing; comparison of search filters; decision-making in choosing search filters; diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) study methods; and decision-making in choosing diagnostic tests. We conducted interviews and a questionnaire with experienced searchers to learn what information assists in the choice of search filters and how filters are used. These investigations informed the development of various approaches to gathering and reporting search filter performance data. We acknowledge that there has been a regrettable delay between carrying out the project, including the searches, and the publication of this report, because of serious illness of the principal investigator. RESULTS: The development of filters most frequently involved using a reference standard derived from hand-searching journals. Most filters were validated internally only. Reporting of methods was generally poor. Sensitivity, precision and specificity were the most commonly reported performance measures and were presented in tables. Aspects of DTA study methods are applicable to search filters, particularly in the development of the reference standard. There is limited evidence on how clinicians choose between diagnostic tests. No published literature was found on how searchers select filters. Interviewing and questioning searchers via a questionnaire found that filters were not appropriate for all tasks but were predominantly used to reduce large numbers of retrieved records and to introduce focus. The Inter Technology Appraisal Support Collaboration (InterTASC) Information Specialists' Sub-Group (ISSG) Search Filters Resource was most frequently mentioned by both groups as the resource consulted to select a filter. Randomised controlled trial (RCT) and systematic review filters, in particular the Cochrane RCT and the McMaster Hedges filters, were most frequently mentioned. The majority indicated that they used different filters depending on the requirement for sensitivity or precision. Over half of the respondents used the filters available in databases. Interviewees used various approaches when using and adapting search filters. Respondents suggested that the main factors that would make choosing a filter easier were the availability of critical appraisals and more detailed performance information. Provenance and having the filter available in a central storage location were also important. LIMITATIONS: The questionnaire could have been shorter and could have included more multiple choice questions, and the reviews of filter performance focused on only four study designs. CONCLUSIONS: Search filter studies should use a representative reference standard and explicitly report methods and results. Performance measures should be presented systematically and clearly. Searchers find filters useful in certain circumstances but expressed a need for more user-friendly performance information to aid filter choice. We suggest approaches to use, adapt and report search filter performance. Future work could include research around search filters and performance measures for study designs not addressed here, exploration of alternative methods of displaying performance results and numerical synthesis of performance comparison results. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and Medical Research Council-NIHR Methodology Research Programme (grant number G0901496).
Assuntos
Bases de Dados Bibliográficas , Armazenamento e Recuperação da Informação/métodos , Literatura de Revisão como Assunto , Ferramenta de Busca/métodos , Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica , Humanos , Pesquisa Qualitativa , Inquéritos e QuestionáriosRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of onabotulinumtoxinA, mirabegron, and anticholinergics in adults with idiopathic overactive bladder (OAB) using network meta-analysis (NMA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Information sources were searched for blinded randomised controlled trials (RCTs), of ≥2 weeks duration, comparing any dose of onabotulinumtoxinA, eligible oral/transdermal anticholinergics, or mirabegron, with each other or placebo, in adults with OAB. Bayesian random-effects models were used to synthesise the results at week 12: NMA for responder analyses and network meta-regression (NMR) for change from baseline analyses. The NMR was used to adjust for differences in baseline severity between studies. Sensitivity analysis, excluding studies considered to be at a high risk of methodological bias, was conducted. RESULTS: In all, 56 RCTs were included in the networks. For each outcome, results are reported for all licensed treatment doses. For each NMR, results are based on patients with an average number of episodes of the outcome at baseline. After 12 weeks, all treatments were more efficacious than placebo. Patients who received onabotulinumtoxinA (100 U) had, on average, the greatest reductions in urinary incontinence episodes (UIE), urgency episodes, and micturition frequency, and the highest odds of achieving decreases of 100% and ≥50% from baseline in UIE/day. When comparing onabotulinumtoxinA with other pharmacotherapies, mean differences favoured onabotulinumtoxinA 100 U over all comparators for UIE and urgency episodes (credible intervals excluded zero) and all but two of the comparators for micturition frequency. OnabotulinumtoxinA 100 U was also associated with higher odds of achieving a 100% and ≥50% decrease in UIE/day than most other licensed treatments in the network. The exclusion of studies with a high risk of bias had little impact on the conclusions. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that, after 12 weeks, onabotulinumtoxinA 100 U provides greater relief of OAB symptoms compared with most other licensed doses of other pharmacotherapies in the network.
Assuntos
Acetanilidas/uso terapêutico , Toxinas Botulínicas Tipo A/uso terapêutico , Antagonistas Colinérgicos/uso terapêutico , Tiazóis/uso terapêutico , Bexiga Urinária Hiperativa/tratamento farmacológico , Acetanilidas/administração & dosagem , Administração Oral , Toxinas Botulínicas Tipo A/administração & dosagem , Antagonistas Colinérgicos/administração & dosagem , Humanos , Tiazóis/administração & dosagem , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The antifibrotics pirfenidone and nintedanib are both approved for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) by regulatory agencies and are recommended by health technology assessment bodies. Other treatments such as N-acetylcysteine are used in clinical practice but have not received regulatory approval. No head-to-head trials have been conducted to directly compare the efficacy of these therapies in IPF. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of treatments for IPF. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted up to April 2015. Phase II/III randomized controlled trials in adults with IPF were eligible. A Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was used to compare pirfenidone, nintedanib, and N-acetylcysteine with respect to forced vital capacity (FVC) and mortality. RESULTS: Nine studies were included in the NMA. For change from baseline in FVC, the NMA indicated that pirfenidone and nintedanib were more effective than placebo after 1 year (pirfenidone vs. placebo: difference = 0.12 liter (L), 95% credible interval [CrI] = 0.03-0.21 L; nintedanib vs. placebo: difference = 0.11 L, 95% CrI = 0.00-0.22 L). There was no evidence that N-acetylcysteine had an effect on FVC compared with placebo (N-acetylcysteine vs. placebo: difference = 0.01 L, 95% CrI = -0.15-0.17 L). Patients treated with pirfenidone also had a lower risk of experiencing a decline in percent predicted FVC of ≥ 10% over 1 year (odds ratio [OR]: 0.58, 95% CrI = 0.40-0.88), whereas there was no conclusive evidence of a difference between nintedanib and placebo (OR: 0.65, 95% CrI = 0.42-1.02). The NMA indicated that pirfenidone reduced all-cause mortality relative to placebo over 1 year (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.52, 95% CrI = 0.28-0.92). There was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality between nintedanib and placebo (HR: 0.70, 95% CrI = 0.32-1.55), or N-acetylcysteine and placebo (HR: 2.00, 95% CrI=0.46-8.62). CONCLUSIONS: Our primary analysis of the available evidence indicates that over 1 year, pirfenidone and nintedanib are effective at reducing lung-function decline, and pirfenidone may reduce the odds of experiencing a decline in percent predicted FVC of ≥10% compared with placebo in the first year of treatment. The results of our analysis also suggest that pirfenidone improves survival. DISCLOSURES: Fleetwood is an employee of Quantics Consulting. McCool and Glanville are employees of York Health Economics Consortium (YHEC). Quantics and YHEC received funding from F. Hoffmann-La Roche for conducting the systematic review and network meta-analysis reported in this paper. Edwards, Gsteiger, and Daigl are employees of F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Fisher was employed by InterMune UK, a wholly owned Roche subsidiary, until July 2015. He is currently employed by FIECON, which has received funding from F. Hoffmann-La Roche for consulting services. The systematic review and network meta-analysis reported in this paper were conducted by Fleetwood (Quantics Consulting) and McCool and Glanville (YHEC), funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. The original network analysis was funded by InterMune. Study concept and design were contributed by Edwards, Gsteiger, and Daigl, along with Fleetwood, McCool, and Glanville. Fleetwood, McCool, and Glanville collected the data, with assistance from Edwards, Gsteiger, and Daigl. Data interpretation was performed by Fleetwood and Fisher, with assistance from the other authors. The manuscript was written by Fleetwood, McCool, and Glanville, with assistance from Edwards, Daigl, and Fisher, and revised by all the authors.
Assuntos
Fibrose Pulmonar Idiopática/diagnóstico , Fibrose Pulmonar Idiopática/tratamento farmacológico , Indóis/uso terapêutico , Piridonas/uso terapêutico , Anti-Inflamatórios não Esteroides/uso terapêutico , Inibidores Enzimáticos/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Fibrose Pulmonar Idiopática/epidemiologia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/métodos , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) is a chronic eye condition that causes severe deterioration of vision and ultimately blindness. Two vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors are approved for nAMD treatment in Europe: ranibizumab and aflibercept. The European license for ranibizumab was updated with an individualized "treat and extend" (T&E) regimen, which involves more proactive treatment based on changes in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and/or anatomical outcomes. The aim of this publication is to compare the efficacy of the ranibizumab T&E regimen with other approved dosing regimens for nAMD on the basis of outcomes identified from a systematic review and subsequent NMA. METHODS: Following a systematic search of publications, to identify relevant studies, a repeated-measures network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to estimate the relative effectiveness of ranibizumab T&E versus approved dosing regimens of ranibizumab and aflibercept. The analysis focused on licensed treatment regimens for nAMD. We examined mean change from baseline in BCVA on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart. RESULTS: The systematic literature review identified 22,949 records, of which 23 studies were included in the NMA. At 12 months, the ranibizumab T&E dosing regimen vs ranibizumab pro re nata (PRN) was associated with small differences in change in BCVA, between 1.86 letter gain at 12 months and 2.35 letter gain at 24 months. A similar difference was observed in the aflibercept dosing regimen versus ranibizumab T&E ; 1.94 letter gain at 12 months and 3.31 letter gain at 24 months. All doses of ranibizumab and aflibercept showed similar effectiveness, and the differences between treatment options were not significant. CONCLUSION: This study used novel repeated-measures NMA to synthesize efficacy results when treatment effects were reported at multiple follow-up times. This repeated-measures NMA suggests that treating patients with the ranibizumab T&E regimen yields similar effectiveness compared to other approved ranibizumab and aflibercept dosing regimens for nAMD treatment. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd, Surrey, UK.
Assuntos
Ranibizumab/farmacologia , Proteínas Recombinantes de Fusão/farmacologia , Fator A de Crescimento do Endotélio Vascular/antagonistas & inibidores , Degeneração Macular Exsudativa , Idoso , Inibidores da Angiogênese/farmacologia , Monitoramento de Medicamentos/métodos , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , Receptores de Fatores de Crescimento do Endotélio Vascular , Resultado do Tratamento , Acuidade Visual/efeitos dos fármacos , Degeneração Macular Exsudativa/tratamento farmacológico , Degeneração Macular Exsudativa/metabolismo , Degeneração Macular Exsudativa/fisiopatologiaRESUMO
International and national guidelines on the treatment of chronic nonhypovolaemic hypotonic hyponatraemia differ; therefore, we have undertaken this systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of interventions for the treatment of chronic nonhypovolaemic hypotonic hyponatraemia. Following registration of the review protocol with PROSPERO, systematic literature searches were conducted to identify randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials assessing any degree of fluid restriction or any drug treatment with the aim of increasing serum sodium concentration in patients with chronic nonhypovolaemic hypotonic hyponatraemia. Where appropriate, outcome data were synthesized in a meta-analysis. A total of 45 716 bibliographic records were identified from the searches and 18 trials (assessing conivaptan, lixivaptan, tolvaptan and satavaptan) met the eligibility criteria. Results suggest that all four vasopressin receptor agonists ("vaptans") significantly improve serum sodium concentration. Lixivaptan, satavaptan and tolvaptan were associated with greater rates of response versus placebo. There was no evidence of a difference between each of the vaptans compared with placebo for mortality, discontinuation and rates of hypernatraemia. No RCT evidence of treatments other than the vaptans for hyponatraemia such as oral urea, salt tablets, mannitol, loop diuretics demeclocycline or lithium was identified. Vaptans demonstrated superiority over placebo for outcomes relating to serum sodium correction. Few trials documented the potential benefit of vaptans on change in health-related quality of life as a result of treatment. There was also a lack of high-quality RCT evidence on the comparative efficacy of the vaptans and other treatment strategies for the treatment of chronic nonhypovolaemic hypotonic hyponatraemia.
Assuntos
Antagonistas dos Receptores de Hormônios Antidiuréticos/uso terapêutico , Hiponatremia/terapia , Receptores de Vasopressinas/agonistas , Benzamidas , Benzazepinas , Humanos , Morfolinas , Pressão Osmótica/efeitos dos fármacos , Pirróis , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Compostos de Espiro , TolvaptanRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Tedizolid, the active moiety of tedizolid phosphate, is approved in the United States, the European Union, Canada and a number of other countries for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) caused by certain susceptible bacteria, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). This network meta-analysis (NMA) evaluates the comparative effectiveness of tedizolid and other antibacterials indicated for the treatment of ABSSSI caused by MRSA. METHODS: Systematic review of 10 databases was undertaken to inform an NMA to estimate the relative effectiveness of tedizolid and established monotherapy comparators (ceftaroline, daptomycin, linezolid, teicoplanin, tigecycline, vancomycin) for treating MRSA-associated ABSSSI. Randomized controlled trials enrolling adults with ABSSSI or complicated skin and skin structure infections caused by suspected/documented MRSA were eligible for inclusion. Networks were developed based on similarity of study design, patient characteristics, outcome measures and available data. Outcomes of interest included clinical response at end of therapy (EOT), post-therapy evaluation (PTE) or test-of-cure assessment and treatment discontinuations resulting from adverse events (AEs). Bayesian NMA was conducted for each outcome using fixed-effects and random effects models. RESULTS: Literature searches identified 3,618 records; 15 trials met the inclusion criteria and were considered suitable for NMA comparison. In fixed-effects models, tedizolid had higher odds of clinical response at EOT (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; credible interval, 1.0, 3.0) and PTE than vancomycin (OR, 1.6; credible interval, 1.1, 2.5). No differences in odds of clinical response at EOT or PTE were observed between tedizolid and other comparators. There was no evidence of a difference among treatments for discontinuation due to AEs. Results from random effects and fixed-effects models were generally consistent. CONCLUSIONS: Tedizolid was superior to vancomycin for clinical response at EOT and PTE. There was no evidence of a difference between tedizolid and other comparators and no evidence of a difference between tedizolid and all comparators when evaluating discontinuation due to AEs. These findings suggest that tedizolid provides an alternative option for the management of serious skin infections caused by suspected or documented MRSA. This study is subject to the limitations inherent in all NMAs, and the results should be interpreted accordingly.