Evaluation of maternal serum protein biomarkers in the prenatal evaluation of placenta accreta spectrum: A systematic scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) is an increasingly commonly reported condition due to the continuous increase in the rate of cesarean deliveries (CD) worldwide; however, the prenatal screening for pregnant patients at risk of PAS at birth remains limited, in particular when imaging expertise is not available. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two major electronic databases (MEDLINE and Embase) were searched electronically for articles published in English between October 1992 and January 2023 using combinations of the relevant medical subject heading terms and keywords. Two independent reviewers selected observational studies that provided data on one or more measurement of maternal blood-specific biomarker(s) during pregnancies with PAS at birth. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR) was used to extract data and report results. RESULTS: Of the 441 reviewed articles, 29 met the inclusion criteria reporting on 34 different biomarkers. 14 studies were retrospective and 15 prospective overall including 18 251 participants. Six studies had a cohort design and the remaining a case-control design. Wide clinical heterogeneity was found in the included studies. In eight studies, the samples were obtained in the first trimester; in five, the samples were collected on hospital admission for delivery; and in the rest, the samples were collected during the second and/or third trimester. CONCLUSIONS: Measurements of serum biomarkers, some of which have been or are still used in screening for other pregnancy complications, could contribute to the prenatal evaluation of patients at risk of PAS at delivery; however, important evidence gaps were identified for suitable cutoffs for most biomarkers, variability of gestational age at sampling and the potential overlap of the marker values with other placental-related complications of pregnancy.

Data integrity of 14 randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: A review of the literature on iron treatments for iron-deficient anaemia in pregnancy indicated duplication of baseline and outcome tables in two separate randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that share only a single author. AIM: To assess the integrity of randomised clinical trials from Dr A.M. Darwish, Assiut University, Egypt. DESIGN: Assessment of Research Integrity. METHODS: We tabulated the characteristics of studies, compared baseline and outcome tables between articles and looked for implausible findings. We used the distribution of baseline p-values to assess whether the summary statistics of baseline characteristics were consistent with properly conducted randomisation. RESULTS: We identified 14 RCTs (1,405 participants) published between October 2004 and September 2019. Two pairs of studies showed considerable similarities in baseline characteristics, while another pair of studies was plagiarized. The analysis of baseline p-values indicated a low probability that all the studies featured randomised treatment allocation. CONCLUSION: Our analysis of the RCTs of Dr Darwish suggests possible integrity problems. We recommend a critical investigation of the studies that have not been retracted. Until that has been completed, these studies should not be used to inform clinical practice.

Use of multiple covariates in assessing treatment-effect modifiers: A methodological review of individual participant data meta-analyses.

Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses of randomised trials are considered a reliable way to assess participant-level treatment effect modifiers but may not make the best use of the available data. Traditionally, effect modifiers are explored one covariate at a time, which gives rise to the possibility that evidence of treatment-covariate interaction may be due to confounding from a different, related covariate. We aimed to evaluate current practice when estimating treatment-covariate interactions in IPD meta-analysis, specifically focusing on involvement of additional covariates in the models. We reviewed 100 IPD meta-analyses of randomised trials, published between 2015 and 2020, that assessed at least one treatment-covariate interaction. We identified four approaches to handling additional covariates: (1) Single interaction model (unadjusted): No additional covariates included (57/100 IPD meta-analyses); (2) Single interaction model (adjusted): Adjustment for the main effect of at least one additional covariate (35/100); (3) Multiple interactions model: Adjustment for at least one two-way interaction between treatment and an additional covariate (3/100); and (4) Three-way interaction model: Three-way interaction formed between treatment, the additional covariate and the potential effect modifier (5/100). IPD is not being utilised to its fullest extent. In an exemplar dataset, we demonstrate how these approaches lead to different conclusions. Researchers should adjust for additional covariates when estimating interactions in IPD meta-analysis providing they adjust their main effects, which is already widely recommended. Further, they should consider whether more complex approaches could provide better information on who might benefit most from treatments, improving patient choice and treatment policy and practice.

Treatment for radiographically active, sputum culture-negative pulmonary tuberculosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: People with radiographic evidence for pulmonary tuberculosis (TB), but negative sputum cultures, have increased risk of developing culture-positive TB. Recent expansion of X-ray screening is leading to increased identification of this group. We set out to synthesise the evidence for treatment to prevent progression to culture-positive disease. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched for prospective trials evaluating the efficacy of TB regimens against placebo, observation, or alternative regimens, for the treatment of adults and children with radiographic evidence of TB but culture-negative respiratory samples. Databases were searched up to 18 Oct 2022. Study quality was assessed using ROB 2·0 and ROBINS-I. The primary outcome was progression to culture-positive TB. Meta-analysis with a random effects model was conducted to estimate pooled efficacy. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021248486). FINDINGS: We included 13 trials (32,568 individuals) conducted between 1955 and 2018. Radiographic and bacteriological criteria for inclusion varied. 19·1% to 57·9% of participants with active x-ray changes and no treatment progressed to culture-positive disease. Progression was reduced with any treatment (6 studies, risk ratio [RR] 0·27, 95%CI 0·13-0·56), although multi-drug TB treatment (RR 0·11, 95%CI 0·05-0·23) was significantly more effective than isoniazid treatment (RR 0·63, 95%CI 0·35-1·13) (p = 0·0002). INTERPRETATION: Multi-drug regimens were associated with significantly reduced risk of progression to TB disease for individuals with radiographically apparent, but culture-negative TB. However, most studies were old, conducted prior to the HIV epidemic and with outdated regimens. New clinical trials are required to identify the optimal treatment approach.

Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cancer of ovarian, fallopian tube and peritoneal origin, referred to collectively as ovarian cancer, is the eighth most common cancer in women and is often diagnosed at an advanced stage. Women with relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) are less well and have a limited life expectancy, therefore maintaining quality of life with effective symptom control is an important aim of treatment. However, the unwanted effects of chemotherapy agents may be severe, and optimal treatment regimens are unclear. Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD), which contains a cytotoxic drug called doxorubicin hydrochloride, is one of several treatment modalities that may be considered for treatment of relapsed EOCs. This is an update of the original Cochrane Review which was published in Issue 7, 2013. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of PLD, with or without other anti-cancer drugs, in women with relapsed high grade epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase (via Ovid) from 1990 to January 2022. We also searched online registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings and reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated PLD in women diagnosed with relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data to a pre-designed data collection form and assessed the risk of bias according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions guidelines. Where possible, we pooled collected data in meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: This is an update of a previous review with 12 additional studies, so this updated review includes a total of 26 RCTs with 8277 participants that evaluated the effects of PLD alone or in combination with other drugs in recurrent EOC: seven in platinum-sensitive disease (2872 participants); 11 in platinum-resistant disease (3246 participants); and eight that recruited individuals regardless of platinum sensitivity status (2079 participants). The certainty of the evidence was assessed for the three most clinically relevant comparisons out of eight comparisons identified in the included RCTs. Recurrent platinum-sensitive EOC PLD with conventional chemotherapy agent compared to alternative combination chemotherapy likely results in little to no difference in overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio (HR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.04; 5 studies, 2006 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) but likely increases progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.89; 5 studies, 2006 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The combination may slightly improve quality of life at three months post-randomisation, measured using European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (mean difference 4.80, 95% CI 0.92 to 8.68; 1 study, 608 participants; low-certainty evidence), but this may not represent a clinically meaningful difference. PLD in combination with another chemotherapy agent compared to alternative combination chemotherapy likely results in little to no difference in the rate of overall severe adverse events (grade ≥ 3) (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.30; 2 studies, 834 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). PLD with chemotherapy likely increases anaemia (grade ≥ 3) (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.85; 5 studies, 1961 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of PLD with conventional chemotherapy on hand-foot syndrome (HFS)(grade ≥ 3) (RR 4.01, 95% CI 1.00 to 16.01; 2 studies, 1028 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and neurological events (grade ≥ 3) (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.74; 4 studies, 1900 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Recurrent platinum-resistant EOC PLD alone compared to another conventional chemotherapy likely results in little to no difference in OS (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.19; 6 studies, 1995 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of PLD on PFS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04; 4 studies, 1803 participants; very low-certainty evidence), overall severe adverse events (grade ≥ 3) (RR ranged from 0.61 to 0.97; 2 studies, 964 participants; very low-certainty evidence), anaemia (grade ≥ 3) (RR ranged from 0.19 to 0.82; 5 studies, 1968 participants; very low-certainty evidence), HFS (grade ≥ 3) (RR ranged from 15.19 to 109.15; 6 studies, 2184 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the rate of neurological events (grade ≥ 3)(RR ranged from 0.08 to 3.09; 3 studies, 1222 participants; very low-certainty evidence). PLD with conventional chemotherapy compared to PLD alone likely results in little to no difference in OS (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.21; 1 study, 242 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and it may result in little to no difference in PFS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.22; 2 studies, 353 participants; low-certainty evidence). The combination likely increases overall severe adverse events (grade ≥ 3) (RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.98 to 3.09; 1 study, 663 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and anaemia (grade ≥ 3) (RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.46 to 3.87; 2 studies, 785 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but likely results in a large reduction in HFS (grade ≥ 3) (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.40; 2 studies, 785 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It may result in little to no difference in neurological events (grade ≥ 3) (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.31; 1 study, 663 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In platinum-sensitive relapsed EOC, including PLD in a combination chemotherapy regimen probably makes little to no difference in OS compared to other combinations, but likely improves PFS. Choice of chemotherapy will therefore be guided by symptoms from previous chemotherapy and other patient considerations. Single-agent PLD remains a useful agent for platinum-resistant relapsed EOC and choice of agent at relapse will depend on patient factors, e.g. degree of bone marrow suppression or neurotoxicity from previous treatments. Adding another agent to PLD likely increases overall grade ≥ 3 adverse events with little to no improvement in survival outcomes. The limited evidence relating to PLD in combination with other agents in platinum-resistant relapsed EOC does not indicate a benefit, but there is some evidence of increased side effects.

Which patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer benefit from docetaxel: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Adding docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves survival in patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, but uncertainty remains about who benefits most. We therefore aimed to obtain up-to-date estimates of the overall effects of docetaxel and to assess whether these effects varied according to prespecified characteristics of the patients or their tumours. METHODS: The STOPCAP M1 collaboration conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. We searched MEDLINE (from database inception to March 31, 2022), Embase (from database inception to March 31, 2022), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from database inception to March 31, 2022), proceedings of relevant conferences (from Jan 1, 1990, to Dec 31, 2022), and ClinicalTrials.gov (from database inception to March 28, 2023) to identify eligible randomised trials that assessed docetaxel plus ADT compared with ADT alone in patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Detailed and updated individual participant data were requested directly from study investigators or through relevant repositories. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival and failure-free survival. Overall pooled effects were estimated using an adjusted, intention-to-treat, two-stage, fixed-effect meta-analysis, with one-stage and random-effects sensitivity analyses. Missing covariate values were imputed. Differences in effect by participant characteristics were estimated using adjusted two-stage, fixed-effect meta-analysis of within-trial interactions on the basis of progression-free survival to maximise power. Identified effect modifiers were also assessed on the basis of overall survival. To explore multiple subgroup interactions and derive subgroup-specific absolute treatment effects we used one-stage flexible parametric modelling and regression standardisation. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019140591. FINDINGS: We obtained individual participant data from 2261 patients (98% of those randomised) from three eligible trials (GETUG-AFU15, CHAARTED, and STAMPEDE trials), with a median follow-up of 72 months (IQR 55-85). Individual participant data were not obtained from two additional small trials. Based on all included trials and patients, there were clear benefits of docetaxel on overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·79, 95% CI 0·70 to 0·88; p<0·0001), progression-free survival (0·70, 0·63 to 0·77; p<0·0001), and failure-free survival (0·64, 0·58 to 0·71; p<0·0001), representing 5-year absolute improvements of around 9-11%. The overall risk of bias was assessed to be low, and there was no strong evidence of differences in effect between trials for all three main outcomes. The relative effect of docetaxel on progression-free survival appeared to be greater with increasing clinical T stage (pinteraction=0·0019), higher volume of metastases (pinteraction=0·020), and, to a lesser extent, synchronous diagnosis of metastatic disease (pinteraction=0·077). Taking into account the other interactions, the effect of docetaxel was independently modified by volume and clinical T stage, but not timing. There was no strong evidence that docetaxel improved absolute effects at 5 years for patients with low-volume, metachronous disease (-1%, 95% CI -15 to 12, for progression-free survival; 0%, -10 to 12, for overall survival). The largest absolute improvement at 5 years was observed for those with high-volume, clinical T stage 4 disease (27%, 95% CI 17 to 37, for progression-free survival; 35%, 24 to 47, for overall survival). INTERPRETATION: The addition of docetaxel to hormone therapy is best suited to patients with poorer prognosis for metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer based on a high volume of disease and potentially the bulkiness of the primary tumour. There is no evidence of meaningful benefit for patients with metachronous, low-volume disease who should therefore be managed differently. These results will better characterise patients most and, importantly, least likely to gain benefit from docetaxel, potentially changing international practice, guiding clinical decision making, better informing treatment policy, and improving patient outcomes. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council and Prostate Cancer UK.

Key Components of Antenatal Lifestyle Interventions to Optimize Gestational Weight Gain: Secondary Analysis of a Systematic Review.

Importance: Randomized clinical trials have found that antenatal lifestyle interventions optimize gestational weight gain (GWG) and pregnancy outcomes. However, key components of successful interventions for implementation have not been systematically identified. Objective: To evaluate intervention components using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) framework to inform implementation of antenatal lifestyle interventions in routine antenatal care. Data Sources: Included studies were drawn from a recently published systematic review on the efficacy of antenatal lifestyle interventions for optimizing GWG. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessment Database, MEDLINE, and Embase were searched from January 1990 to May 2020. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials examining efficacy of antenatal lifestyle interventions in optimizing GWG were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Random effects meta-analyses were used to evaluate the association of intervention characteristics with efficacy of antenatal lifestyle interventions in optimizing GWG. The results are reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline. Data extraction was performed by 2 independent reviewers. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was mean GWG. Measures included characteristics of antenatal lifestyle interventions comprising domains related to theoretical framework, material, procedure, facilitator (allied health staff, medical staff, or researcher), delivery format (individual or group), mode, location, gestational age at commencement (<20 wk or ≥20 wk), number of sessions (low [1-5 sessions], moderate [6-20 sessions], and high [≥21 sessions]), duration (low [1-12 wk], moderate [13-20 wk], and high [≥21 wk]), tailoring, attrition, and adherence. For all mean differences (MDs), the reference group was the control group (ie, usual care). Results: Overall, 99 studies with 34 546 pregnant individuals were included with differential effective intervention components found according to intervention type. Broadly, interventions delivered by an allied health professional were associated with a greater decrease in GWG compared with those delivered by other facilitators (MD, -1.36 kg; 95% CI, -1.71 to -1.02 kg; P < .001). Compared with corresponding subgroups, dietary interventions with an individual delivery format (MD, -3.91 kg; 95% CI -5.82 to -2.01 kg; P = .002) and moderate number of sessions (MD, -4.35 kg; 95% CI -5.80 to -2.89 kg; P < .001) were associated with the greatest decrease in GWG. Physical activity and mixed behavioral interventions had attenuated associations with GWG. These interventions may benefit from an earlier commencement and a longer duration for more effective optimization of GWG. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that pragmatic research may be needed to test and evaluate effective intervention components to inform implementation of interventions in routine antenatal care for broad public health benefit.

Evidence-based antenatal interventions to reduce the incidence of small vulnerable newborns and their associated poor outcomes.

A package of care for all pregnant women within eight scheduled antenatal care contacts is recommended by WHO. Some interventions for reducing and managing the outcomes for small vulnerable newborns (SVNs) exist within the WHO package and need to be more fully implemented, but additional effective measures are needed. We summarise evidence-based antenatal and intrapartum interventions (up to and including clamping the umbilical cord) to prevent vulnerable births or improve outcomes, informed by systematic reviews. We estimate, using the Lives Saved Tool, that eight proven preventive interventions (multiple micronutrient supplementation, balanced protein and energy supplementation, low-dose aspirin, progesterone provided vaginally, education for smoking cessation, malaria prevention, treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria, and treatment of syphilis), if fully implemented in 81 low-income and middle-income countries, could prevent 5·202 million SVN births (sensitivity bounds 2·398-7·903) and 0·566 million stillbirths (0·208-0·754) per year. These interventions, along with two that can reduce the complications of preterm (<37 weeks' gestation) births (antenatal corticosteroids and delayed cord clamping), could avert 0·476 million neonatal deaths (0·181-0·676) per year. If further research substantiates the preventive effect of three additional interventions (supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids, calcium, and zinc) on SVN births, about 8·369 million SVN births (2·398-13·857) and 0·652 million neonatal deaths (0·181-0·917) could be avoided per year. Scaling up the eight proven interventions and two intrapartum interventions would cost about US$1·1 billion in 2030 and the potential interventions would cost an additional $3·0 billion. Implementation of antenatal care recommendations is urgent and should include all interventions that have proven effects on SVN babies, within the context of access to family planning services and addressing social determinants of health. Attaining high effective coverage with these interventions will be necessary to achieve global targets for the reduction of low birthweight births and neonatal mortality, and long-term benefits on growth and human capital.

Angiogenesis inhibitors for the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Many women, and other females, with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) develop resistance to conventional chemotherapy drugs. Drugs that inhibit angiogenesis (development of new blood vessels), essential for tumour growth, control cancer growth by denying blood supply to tumour nodules. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and toxicities of angiogenesis inhibitors for treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). SEARCH METHODS: We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase (from 1990 to 30 September 2022). We searched clinical trials registers and contacted investigators of completed and ongoing trials for further information. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs comparing angiogenesis inhibitors with standard chemotherapy, other types of anti-cancer treatment, other angiogenesis inhibitors with or without other treatments, or placebo/no treatment in a maintenance setting, in women with EOC.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), quality of life (QoL), adverse events (grade 3 and above) and hypertension (grade 2 and above). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 50 studies (14,836 participants) for inclusion (including five studies from the previous version of this review): 13 solely in females with newly-diagnosed EOC and 37 in females with recurrent EOC (nine studies in platinum-sensitive EOC; 19 in platinum-resistant EOC; nine with studies with mixed or unclear platinum sensitivity). The main results are presented below.  Newly-diagnosed EOC Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), given with chemotherapy and continued as maintenance, likely results in little to no difference in OS compared to chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio (HR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.07; 2 studies, 2776 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Evidence is very uncertain for PFS (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.05; 2 studies, 2746 participants; very low-certainty evidence), although the combination results in a slight reduction in global QoL (mean difference (MD) -6.4, 95% CI -8.86 to -3.94; 1 study, 890 participants; high-certainty evidence). The combination likely increases any adverse event (grade ≥ 3) (risk ratio (RR) 1.16, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.26; 1 study, 1485 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may result in a large increase in hypertension (grade ≥ 2) (RR 4.27, 95% CI 3.25 to 5.60; 2 studies, 2707 participants; low-certainty evidence). Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) to block VEGF receptors (VEGF-R), given with chemotherapy and continued as maintenance, likely result in little to no difference in OS (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.17; 2 studies, 1451 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and likely increase PFS slightly (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.00; 2 studies, 2466 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The combination likely reduces QoL slightly (MD -1.86, 95% CI -3.46 to -0.26; 1 study, 1340 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but it increases any adverse event (grade ≥ 3) slightly (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.55; 1 study, 188 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may result in a large increase in hypertension (grade ≥ 3) (RR 6.49, 95% CI 2.02 to 20.87; 1 study, 1352 participants; low-certainty evidence).  Recurrent EOC (platinum-sensitive) Moderate-certainty evidence from three studies (with 1564 participants) indicates that bevacizumab with chemotherapy, and continued as maintenance, likely results in little to no difference in OS (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.02), but likely improves PFS (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.63) compared to chemotherapy alone. The combination may result in little to no difference in QoL (MD 0.8, 95% CI -2.11 to 3.71; 1 study, 486 participants; low-certainty evidence), but it increases the rate of any adverse event (grade ≥ 3) slightly (RR 1.11, 1.07 to 1.16; 3 studies, 1538 participants; high-certainty evidence). Hypertension (grade ≥ 3) was more common in arms with bevacizumab (RR 5.82, 95% CI 3.84 to 8.83; 3 studies, 1538 participants).  TKIs with chemotherapy may result in little to no difference in OS (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.11; 1 study, 282 participants; low-certainty evidence), likely increase PFS (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.72; 1 study, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may have little to no effect on QoL (MD 6.1, 95% CI -0.96 to 13.16; 1 study, 146 participants; low-certainty evidence). Hypertension (grade ≥ 3) was more common with TKIs (RR 3.32, 95% CI 1.21 to 9.10). Recurrent EOC (platinum-resistant) Bevacizumab with chemotherapy and continued as maintenance increases OS (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.88; 5 studies, 778 participants; high-certainty evidence) and likely results in a large increase in PFS (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.58; 5 studies, 778 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The combination may result in a large increase in hypertension (grade ≥ 2) (RR 3.11, 95% CI 1.83 to 5.27; 2 studies, 436 participants; low-certainty evidence). The rate of bowel fistula/perforation (grade ≥ 2) may be slightly higher with bevacizumab (RR 6.89, 95% CI 0.86 to 55.09; 2 studies, 436 participants). Evidence from eight studies suggest TKIs with chemotherapy likely result in little to no difference in OS (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.08; 940 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), with low-certainty evidence that it may increase PFS (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89; 940 participants), and may result in little to no meaningful difference in QoL (MD ranged from -0.19 at 6 weeks to -3.40 at 4 months). The combination increases any adverse event (grade ≥ 3) slightly (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.49; 3 studies, 402 participants; high-certainty evidence). The effect on bowel fistula/perforation rates is uncertain (RR 2.74, 95% CI 0.77 to 9.75; 5 studies, 557 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Bevacizumab likely improves both OS and PFS in platinum-resistant relapsed EOC. In platinum-sensitive relapsed disease, bevacizumab and TKIs probably improve PFS, but may or may not improve OS. The results for TKIs in platinum-resistant relapsed EOC are similar. The effects on OS or PFS in newly-diagnosed EOC are less certain, with a decrease in QoL and increase in adverse events. Overall adverse events and QoL data were more variably reported than were PFS data. There appears to be a role for anti-angiogenesis treatment, but given the additional treatment burden and economic costs of maintenance treatments, benefits and risks of anti-angiogenesis treatments should be carefully considered.

ANTECEDENTES: Muchas mujeres con cáncer de ovario epitelial (COE) desarrollan resistencia a los fármacos de quimioterapia convencional. Los fármacos que inhiben la angiogénesis (desarrollo de vasos sanguíneos de neoformación), esencial para el crecimiento tumoral, controlan el crecimiento del cáncer al impedir el riego sanguíneo a los nódulos tumorales. OBJETIVOS: Comparar la efectividad y los efectos adversos de los inhibidores de la angiogénesis para el tratamiento del cáncer de ovario epitelial (COE). MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Se identificaron ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) mediante búsquedas en CENTRAL, MEDLINE y Embase (desde 1990 hasta el 30 de septiembre de 2022). Se realizaron búsquedas en los registros de ensayos clínicos y se estableció contacto con los investigadores de ensayos finalizados y en curso para obtener información adicional. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: ECA que compararan los inhibidores de la angiogénesis con la quimioterapia estándar, otros tipos de tratamiento anticancerígeno, otros inhibidores de la angiogénesis con o sin otros tratamientos, o placebo/ningún tratamiento en un contexto de mantenimiento, en mujeres con COE. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Se utilizaron los procedimientos metodológicos estándar previstos por Cochrane. Los desenlaces fueron la supervivencia general (SG), la supervivencia sin progresión (SSP), la calidad de vida (CdV), los eventos adversos (de grado 3 o superior) y la hipertensión (de grado 2 o superior). RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Se identificaron 50 estudios (14 836 participantes) para inclusión (incluidos cinco estudios de la versión anterior de esta revisión): 13 únicamente en mujeres con COE recién diagnosticado y 37 en mujeres con COE recidivante (nueve estudios en COE sensible al platino; 19 en COE resistente al platino; nueve con estudios con sensibilidad mixta o incierta al platino). A continuación se presentan los principales resultados. COE recién diagnosticado El bevacizumab, un anticuerpo monoclonal que se une al factor de crecimiento endotelial vascular (VEGF), administrado con quimioterapia y continuado como mantenimiento, probablemente da lugar a poca o ninguna diferencia en la SG en comparación con la quimioterapia sola (cociente de riesgos instantáneos [CRI] 0,97; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 0,88 a 1,07; dos estudios, 2776 participantes; evidencia de certeza moderada). La evidencia es muy incierta para la SSP (CRI 0,82; IC del 95%: 0,64 a 1,05; dos estudios, 2746 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja), aunque la combinación produce una ligera reducción de la CdV global (diferencia de medias [DM] ­6,4; IC del 95%: ­8,86 a ­3,94; un estudio, 890 participantes; evidencia de certeza alta). La combinación probablemente aumenta cualquier evento adverso (grado ≥ 3) (razón de riesgos [RR] 1,16; IC del 95%: 1,07 a 1,26; un estudio, 1485 participantes; evidencia de certeza moderada) y podría dar lugar a un gran aumento de la hipertensión (grado ≥ 2) (RR 4,27; IC del 95%: 3,25 a 5,60; dos estudios, 2707 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). Los inhibidores de la tirosina cinasa (ITK) para bloquear los receptores del VEGF (VEGF­R), administrados con quimioterapia y continuados como mantenimiento, probablemente den lugar a poca o ninguna diferencia en la SG (CRI 0,99; IC del 95%: 0,84 a 1,17; dos estudios, 1451 participantes; evidencia de certeza moderada) y podrían aumentar ligeramente la SSP (CRI 0,88; IC del 95%: 0,77 a 1,00; dos estudios, 2466 participantes; evidencia de certeza moderada). Es probable que la combinación reduzca ligeramente la CdV (DM ­1,86; IC del 95%: ­3,46 a ­0,26; un estudio, 1340 participantes; evidencia de certeza moderada), pero aumente ligeramente cualquier evento adverso (grado ≥ 3) (RR 1,31; IC del 95%: 1,11 a 1,55; un estudio, 188 participantes; evidencia de certeza moderada) y podría dar lugar a un gran aumento de la hipertensión (grado ≥ 3) (RR 6,49; IC del 95%: 2,02 a 20,87; un estudio, 1352 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). COE recidivante (sensible al platino) La evidencia de certeza moderada de tres estudios (con 1564 participantes) indica que el bevacizumab con quimioterapia, y continuado como mantenimiento, probablemente da lugar a poca o ninguna diferencia en la SG (CRI 0,90; IC del 95%: 0,79 a 1,02), pero posiblemente mejora la SSP (CRI 0,56; IC del 95%: 0,50 a 0,63) en comparación con la quimioterapia sola. La combinación podría dar lugar a poca o ninguna diferencia en la CdV (DM 0,8; IC del 95%: ­2,11 a 3,71; un estudio, 486 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja), pero aumenta ligeramente la tasa de cualquier evento adverso (grado ≥ 3) (RR 1,11; 1,07 a 1,16; tres estudios, 1538 participantes; evidencia de certeza alta). La hipertensión (grado ≥ 3) fue más frecuente en los grupos con bevacizumab (RR 5,82; IC del 95%: 3,84 a 8,83; tres estudios, 1538 participantes). Los ITK con quimioterapia podrían dar lugar a poca o ninguna diferencia en la SG (CRI 0,86; IC del 95%: 0,67 a 1,11; un estudio, 282 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja), probablemente aumenten la SSP (CRI 0,56; IC del 95%: 0,44 a 0,72; un estudio, 282 participantes; evidencia de certeza moderada) y podrían tener poco o ningún efecto en la CdV (DM 6,1; IC del 95%: ­0,96 a 13,16; un estudio, 146 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). La hipertensión (grado ≥ 3) fue más frecuente con los ITK (RR 3,32; IC del 95%: 1,21 a 9,10). COE recidivante (resistente al platino) El bevacizumab con quimioterapia y continuado como mantenimiento aumenta la SG (CRI 0,73; IC del 95%: 0,61 a 0,88; cinco estudios, 778 participantes; evidencia de certeza alta) y probablemente da lugar a un gran aumento de la SSP (CRI 0,49; IC del 95%: 0,42 a 0,58; cinco estudios, 778 participantes; evidencia de certeza moderada). La combinación podría dar lugar a un gran aumento de la hipertensión (grado ≥ 2) (RR 3,11; IC del 95%: 1,83 a 5,27; dos estudios, 436 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). La tasa de fístula/perforación intestinal (grado ≥ 2) podría ser ligeramente superior con bevacizumab (RR 6,89; IC del 95%: 0,86 a 55,09; dos estudios, 436 participantes). La evidencia de ocho estudios indica que es probable que los ITK con quimioterapia den lugar a poca o ninguna diferencia en la SG (CRI 0,85; IC del 95%: 0,68 a 1,08; 940 participantes; evidencia de certeza moderada), con evidencia de certeza baja de que podrían aumentar la SSP (CRI 0,70; IC del 95%: 0,55 a 0,89; 940 participantes), y podrían dar lugar a poca o ninguna diferencia significativa en la CdV (la DM varió de ­0,19 a las seis semanas a ­3,40 a los cuatro meses). La combinación aumenta ligeramente cualquier evento adverso (grado ≥ 3) (RR 1,23; IC del 95%: 1,02 a 1,49; tres estudios, 402 participantes; evidencia de certeza alta). El efecto sobre las tasas de fístula/perforación intestinal es incierto (RR 2,74; IC del 95%: 0,77 a 9,75; cinco estudios, 557 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja). CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: Es probable que el bevacizumab mejore tanto la SG como la SSP en el COE recidivante resistente al platino. En la enfermedad recidivante sensible al platino, el bevacizumab y los ITK probablemente mejoran la SSP, pero podrían o no mejorar la SG. Los resultados para los ITK en el COE recidivante resistente al platino son similares. Existe menos certeza en cuanto a los efectos sobre la SG o la SSP en el COE recién diagnosticado, con una disminución de la CdV y un aumento de los eventos adversos. Los eventos adversos globales y los datos de CdV se informaron de forma más variable que los datos de SSP. El tratamiento antiangiogénico parece tener una función, pero dada la carga adicional de tratamiento y los costes económicos de los tratamientos de mantenimiento, se deben considerar cuidadosamente sus beneficios y riesgos.

Nonlinear effects and effect modification at the participant-level in IPD meta-analysis part 2: methodological guidance is available.

OBJECTIVES: To review methodological guidance for nonlinear covariate-outcome associations (NL), and linear effect modification and nonlinear effect modification (LEM and NLEM) at the participant level in individual participant data meta-analyses (IPDMAs) and their power requirements. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library to identify methodology publications on IPDMA of LEM, NL or NLEM (PROSPERO CRD42019126768). RESULTS: Through screening 6,466 records we identified 54 potential articles of which 23 full texts were relevant. Nine further relevant publications were published before or after the literature search and were added. Of these 32 references, 21 articles considered LEM, 6 articles NL or NLEM and 6 articles described sample size calculations. A book described all four. Sample size may be calculated through simulation or closed form. Assessments of LEM or NLEM at the participant level need to be based on within-trial information alone. Nonlinearity (NL or NLEM) can be modeled using polynomials or splines to avoid categorization. CONCLUSION: Detailed methodological guidance on IPDMA of effect modification at participant-level is available. However, methodology papers for sample size and nonlinearity are rarer and may not cover all scenarios. On these aspects, further guidance is needed.

Nonlinear effects and effect modification at the participant-level in IPD meta-analysis part 1: analysis methods are often substandard.

OBJECTIVES: To review analysis methods used for linear effect modification (LEM), nonlinear covariate-outcome associations (NL) and nonlinear effect modification (NLEM) at the participant-level in individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library to identify IPDMA of randomized controlled trials (PROSPERO CRD42019126768). We investigated if and how IPDMA examined LEM, NL and NLEM, including whether aggregation bias was addressed and if power was considered. RESULTS: We screened 6,466 records, randomly sampled 207 and identified 100 IPDMA of LEM, NL or NLEM. Power for LEM was calculated a priori in 3 IPDMA. Of 100 IPDMA, 94 analyzed LEM, 4 NLEM and 8 NL. One-stage models were favoured for all three (56%, 100%, 50%, respectively). Two-stage models were used in 15%, 0% and 25% of IPDMA with unclear descriptions in 30%, 0% and 25%, respectively. Only 12% of one-stage LEM and NLEM IPDMA provided sufficient detail to confirm they had addressed aggregation bias. CONCLUSION: Investigation of effect modification at the participant-level is common in IPDMA projects, but methods are often open to bias or lack detailed descriptions. Nonlinearity of continuous covariates and power of IPDMA are rarely assessed.

The natural history of untreated pulmonary tuberculosis in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Stages of tuberculosis disease can be delineated by radiology, microbiology, and symptoms, but transitions between these stages remain unclear. In a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of individuals with untreated tuberculosis who underwent follow-up (34 cohorts from 24 studies, with a combined sample of 139 063), we aimed to quantify progression and regression across the tuberculosis disease spectrum by extracting summary estimates to align with disease transitions in a conceptual framework of the natural history of tuberculosis. Progression from microbiologically negative to positive disease (based on smear or culture tests) in participants with baseline radiographic evidence of tuberculosis occurred at an annualised rate of 10% (95% CI 6·2-13·3) in those with chest x-rays suggestive of active tuberculosis, and at a rate of 1% (0·3-1·8) in those with chest x-ray changes suggestive of inactive tuberculosis. Reversion from microbiologically positive to undetectable disease in prospective cohorts occurred at an annualised rate of 12% (6·8-18·0). A better understanding of the natural history of pulmonary tuberculosis, including the risk of progression in relation to radiological findings, could improve estimates of the global disease burden and inform the development of clinical guidelines and policies for treatment and prevention.

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors for the treatment of ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is the sixth most common cancer in women world-wide. Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is the most common; three-quarters of women present when disease has spread outside the pelvis (stage III or IV). Treatment consists of a combination of  surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy. Although initial responses to chemotherapy are good, most women with advanced disease will relapse. PARP (poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase) inhibitors (PARPi), are a type of anticancer treatment that works by preventing cancer cells from repairing DNA damage, especially in those with breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) variants. PARPi offer a different mechanism of anticancer treatment from conventional chemotherapy. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and risks of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase) inhibitors (PARPi) for the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). SEARCH METHODS: We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central 2020, Issue 10), Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trial Register, MEDLINE (1990 to October 2020), Embase (1990 to October 2020), ongoing trials on www.controlled-trials.com/rct, www.clinicaltrials.gov, www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials, the National Research Register (NRR), FDA database and pharmaceutical industry biomedical literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials that randomised women with EOC to PARPi with no treatment, or PARPi versus conventional chemotherapy, or PARPi together with conventional chemotherapy versus conventional chemotherapy alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology. Two review authors independently assessed whether studies met the inclusion criteria. We contacted investigators for additional data. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life (QoL) and rate of adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 studies (6109 participants); four (3070 participants) with newly-diagnosed, advanced EOC and 11 (3039 participants) with recurrent EOC. The studies varied in types of comparisons and evaluated PARPi. Eight studies were judged as at low risk of bias in most of the domains. Quality of life data were generally poorly reported. Below we present six key comparisons.  The majority of participants had BRCA mutations, either in their tumour (sBRCAmut) and/or germline (gBRCAmut), or homologous recombination deficiencies (HRD) in their tumours. Newly diagnosed EOC Overall, four studies evaluated the effect of PARPi in newly-diagnosed, advanced EOC. Two compared PARPi with chemotherapy and chemotherapy alone. OS data were not reported. The combination of PARPi with chemotherapy may have little to no difference in progression-free survival (PFS) (two studies, 1564 participants; hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI 0).49 to 1.38; very low-certainty evidence)(no evidence of disease progression at 12 months' 63% with PARPi versus 69% for placebo).  PARPi with chemotherapy likely increases any severe adverse event (SevAE) (grade 3 or higher) slightly (45%) compared with chemotherapy alone (51%) (two studies, 1549 participants, risk ratio (RR) 1.13, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.20; high-certainty evidence). PARPi combined with chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone likely results in little to no difference in the QoL (one study; 744 participants, MD 1.56 95% CI -0.42 to 3.54; moderate-certainty evidence).  Two studies compared PARPi monotherapy with placebo as maintenance after first-line chemotherapy in newly diagnosed EOC. PARPi probably results in little to no difference in OS (two studies, 1124 participants; HR 0.81, 95%CI 0.59 to 1.13; moderate-certainty evidence) (alive at 12 months 68% with PARPi versus 62% for placebo). However, PARPi may increase PFS (two studies, 1124 participants; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.92; low-certainty evidence) (no evidence of disease progression at 12 months' 55% with PARPi versus 24% for placebo). There may be an increase in the risk of experiencing any SevAE (grade 3 or higher) with PARPi (54%) compared with placebo (19%)(two studies, 1118 participants, RR 2.87, 95% CI 1.65 to 4.99; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. There is probably a slight reduction in QoL with PARPi, although this may not be clinically significant (one study, 362 participants; MD -3.00, 95%CI -4.48 to -1.52; moderate-certainty evidence).  Recurrent, platinum-sensitive EOC Overall, 10 studies evaluated the effect of PARPi in recurrent platinum-sensitive EOC. Three studies compared PARPi monotherapy with chemotherapy alone. PARPi may result in little to no difference in OS (two studies, 331 participants; HR 0.95, 95%CI 0.62 to 1.47; low-certainty evidence) (percentage alive at 36 months 18% with PARPi versus 17% for placebo). Evidence is very uncertain about the effect of PARPi on PFS (three studies, 739 participants; HR 0.88, 95%CI 0.56 to 1.38; very low-certainty evidence)(no evidence of disease progression at 12 months 26% with PARPi versus 22% for placebo). There may be little to no difference in rates of any SevAE (grade 3 or higher) with PARPi (50%) than chemotherapy alone (47%) (one study, 254 participants; RR 1.06, 95%CI 0.80 to 1.39; low-certainty evidence). Four studies compared PARPi monotherapy as maintenance with placebo. PARPi may result in little to no difference in OS (two studies, 560 participants; HR 0.88, 95%CI 0.65 to 1.20; moderate-certainty evidence)(percentage alive at 36 months 21% with PARPi versus 17% for placebo). However, evidence suggests that PARPi as maintenance therapy results in a large PFS (four studies, 1677 participants; HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.42; high-certainty evidence)(no evidence of disease progression at 12 months 37% with PARPi versus 5.5% for placebo). PARPi maintenance therapy may result in a large increase in any SevAE (51%) (grade 3 or higher) than placebo (19%)(four studies, 1665 participants, RR 2.62, 95%CI 1.85 to 3.72; low-certainty evidence). PARPi compared with chemotherapy may result in little or no change in QoL (one study, 229 participants, MD 1.20, 95%CI -1.75 to 4.16; low-certainty evidence). Recurrent, platinum-resistant EOC Two studies compared PARPi with chemotherapy. The certainty of evidence in both studies was graded as very low. Overall, there was minimal information on the QoL and adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: PARPi maintenance treatment after chemotherapy may improve PFS in women with newly-diagnosed and recurrent platinum-sensitive EOC; there may be little to no effect on OS, although OS data are immature. Overall, this is likely at the expense of an increase in SevAE. It is  disappointing that data on quality of life outcomes  are relatively sparse. More research is needed to determine whether PARPi have a role to play in platinum-resistant disease.

Association of Antenatal Diet and Physical Activity-Based Interventions With Gestational Weight Gain and Pregnancy Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Excessive gestational weight gain (GWG) is common and associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Antenatal lifestyle interventions limit GWG; yet benefits of different intervention types and specific maternal and neonatal outcomes are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of different types of diet and physical activity-based antenatal lifestyle interventions with GWG and maternal and neonatal outcomes. DATA SOURCES: A 2-stage systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Health Technology Assessment Database was conducted from February 1, 2017, to May 31, 2020. Search results from the present study were integrated with those from a previous systematic review from 1990 to February 2017. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials reporting GWG and maternal and neonatal outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted for random-effects meta-analyses to calculate the summary effect estimates and 95% CIs. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes were clinically prioritized, with mean GWG as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, cesarean section, preterm delivery, large or small for gestational age neonates, neonatal intensive care unit admission, or fetal death. RESULTS: A total of 117 randomized clinical trials of antenatal lifestyle interventions (involving 34 546 women) were included. Overall lifestyle intervention was associated with reduced GWG (-1.15 kg; 95% CI, -1.40 to -0.91), risk of gestational diabetes (odds ratio [OR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70-0.89), and total adverse maternal outcomes (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.84-0.94) vs routine care. Compared with routine care, diet was associated with less GWG (-2.63 kg; 95% CI, -3.87 to -1.40) than physical activity (-1.04 kg; 95% CI, -1.33 to -0.74) or mixed interventions (eg, unstructured lifestyle support, written information with weight monitoring, or behavioral support alone) (-0.74 kg; 95% CI, -1.06 to -0.43). Diet was associated with reduced risk of gestational diabetes (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.45-0.82), preterm delivery (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.22-0.84), large for gestational age neonate (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.08-0.47), neonatal intensive care admission (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48-0.95), and total adverse maternal (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.92) and neonatal outcomes (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26-0.72). Physical activity was associated with reduced GWG and reduced risk of gestational diabetes (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.47-0.75), hypertensive disorders (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.48-0.90), cesarean section (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.95), and total adverse maternal outcomes (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.71-0.86). Diet with physical activity was associated with reduced GWG (-1.35 kg; 95% CI, -1.95 to -0.75) and reduced risk of gestational diabetes (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.96) and total adverse maternal outcomes (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95). Mixed interventions were associated with reduced GWG only. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This systematic review and meta-analysis found level 1 evidence that antenatal structured diet and physical activity-based lifestyle interventions were associated with reduced GWG and lower risk of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. The findings support the implementation of such interventions in routine antenatal care and policy around the world.

Treatment options for progression or recurrence of glioblastoma: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma (GBM) is a highly malignant brain tumour that almost inevitably progresses or recurs after first line standard of care. There is no consensus regarding the best treatment/s to offer people upon disease progression or recurrence. For the purposes of this review, progression and recurrence are considered as one entity. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of further treatment/s for first and subsequent progression or recurrence of glioblastoma (GBM) among people who have received the standard of care (Stupp protocol) for primary treatment of the disease; and to prepare a brief economic commentary on the available evidence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and Embase electronic databases from 2005 to December 2019 and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, in the Cochrane Library; Issue 12, 2019). Economic searches included the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) up to 2015 (database closure) and MEDLINE and Embase from 2015 to December 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative non-randomised studies (NRSs) evaluating effectiveness of treatments for progressive/recurrent GBM. Eligible studies included people with progressive or recurrent GBM who had received first line radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data to a pre-designed data extraction form. We conducted network meta-analyses (NMA) and ranked treatments according to effectiveness for each outcome using the random-effects model and Stata software (version 15). We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 42 studies: these comprised 34 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 8 non-randomised studies (NRSs) involving 5236 participants. We judged most RCTs to be at a low risk of bias and NRSs at high risk of bias. Interventions included chemotherapy, re-operation, re-irradiation and novel therapies either used alone or in combination. For first recurrence, we included 11 interventions in the network meta-analysis (NMA) for overall survival (OS), and eight in the NMA for progression-free survival (PFS). Lomustine (LOM; also known as CCNU) was the most common comparator and was used as the reference treatment. No studies in the NMA evaluated surgery, re-irradiation, PCV (procarbazine, lomustine, vincristine), TMZ re-challenge or best supportive care. We could not perform NMA for second or later recurrence due to insufficient data. Quality-of-life data were sparse. First recurrence (NMA findings) Median OS across included studies in the NMA ranged from 5.5 to 12.6 months and median progression-free survival (PFS) ranged from 1.5 months to 4.2 months. We found no high-certainty evidence that any treatments tested were better than lomustine. These treatments included the following. Bevacizumab plus lomustine: Evidence suggested probably little or no difference in OS between bevacizumab (BEV) combined with lomustine (LOM) and LOM monotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 0.75 to 1.10; moderate-certainty evidence), although BEV + LOM may improve PFS (HR 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.74; low-certainty evidence). Bevacizumab monotherapy: Low-certainty evidence suggested there may be little or no difference in OS (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.76) and PFS (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.38; low-certainty evidence) between BEV and LOM monotherapies; more evidence on BEV is needed. Regorafenib (REG): REG may improve OS compared with LOM (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.76; low-certainty evidence). Evidence on PFS was very low certainty and more evidence on REG is needed. Temozolomide (TMZ) plus Depatux-M (ABT414): For OS, low-certainty evidence suggested that TMZ plus ABT414 may be more effective than LOM (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.92) and may be more effective than BEV (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.89; low-certainty evidence). This may be due to the TMZ component only and more evidence is needed. Fotemustine (FOM): FOM and LOM may have similar effects on OS (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.57, low-certainty evidence). Bevacizumab and irinotecan (IRI): Evidence on BEV + irinotecan (IRI) versus LOM for both OS and PFS is very uncertain and there is probably little or no difference between BEV + IRI versus BEV monotherapy (OS: HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30; moderate-certainty evidence). When treatments were ranked for OS, FOM ranked first, BEV + LOM second, LOM third, BEV + IRI fourth, and BEV fifth. Ranking does not take into account the certainty of the evidence, which also suggests there may be little or no difference between FOM and LOM. Other treatments Three studies evaluated re-operation versus no re-operation, with or without re-irradiation and chemotherapy, and these suggested possible survival advantages with re-operation within the context of being able to select suitable candidates for re-operation. A cannabinoid treatment in the early stages of evaluation, in combination with TMZ, merits further evaluation. Second or later recurrence Limited evidence from three heterogeneous studies suggested that radiotherapy with or without BEV may have a beneficial effect on survival but more evidence is needed. Evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions about the best radiotherapy dosage. Other evidence suggested that there may be little difference in survival with tumour-treating fields compared with physician's best choice of treatment. We found no reliable evidence on best supportive care. Severe adverse events (SAEs) The BEV+LOM combination was associated with significantly greater risk of SAEs than LOM monotherapy (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.72 to 3.66, high-certainty evidence), and ranked joint worst with cediranib + LOM (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.29 to 4.90; high-certainty evidence). LOM ranked best and REG ranked second best. Adding novel treatments to BEV was generally associated with a higher risk of severe adverse events compared with BEV alone. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For treatment of first recurrence of GBM, among people previously treated with surgery and standard chemoradiotherapy, the combination treatments evaluated did not improve overall survival compared with LOM monotherapy and were often associated with a higher risk of severe adverse events. Limited evidence suggested that re-operation with or without re-irradiation and chemotherapy may be suitable for selected candidates. Evidence on second recurrence is sparse. Re-irradiation with or without bevacizumab may be of value in selected individuals, but more evidence is needed.

ANTECEDENTES: El glioblastoma (GBM) es un tumor cerebral altamente maligno que casi inevitablemente progresa o recidiva después de un tratamiento de primera línea. No hay consenso sobre el mejor o los mejores tratamientos que se pueden ofrecer a las personas que presentan progresión o recidiva de la enfermedad. A los efectos de la presente revisión, la progresión y la recidiva se consideran como una sola entidad. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar la efectividad de los tratamientos adicionales para la primera y subsiguiente progresión o recidiva del glioblastoma (GBM) entre las personas que han recibido atención estándar (protocolo Stupp) para el tratamiento primario de la enfermedad, así como preparar un breve comentario económico sobre la evidencia disponible. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Se realizaron búsquedas en las bases de datos electrónicas de MEDLINE y Embase desde 2005 hasta diciembre de 2019 y en el Registro Cochrane central de ensayos controlados (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) (CENTRAL, en la Cochrane Library; Número 12, 2019). Las búsquedas económicas incluyeron la National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) hasta 2015 (cierre de la base de datos) y MEDLINE y Embase desde 2015 hasta diciembre de 2019. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) y estudios comparativos no aleatorizados (no ECA) que evaluaron la efectividad de los tratamientos para el GBM progresivo/recidivante. Los estudios elegibles incluyeron personas con GBM progresivo o recidivante que habían recibido radioterapia de primera línea con temozolomida (TMZ) concomitante y adyuvante. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Dos autores de la revisión de forma independiente seleccionaron los estudios y extrajeron los datos en un formulario de extracción de datos prediseñado. Se realizaron metanálisis en red (MAR) y los tratamientos se clasificaron según la efectividad de cada desenlace, mediante el modelo de efectos aleatorios y el software Stata (versión 15). La certeza de la evidencia se evaluó mediante los criterios GRADE. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Se incluyeron 42 estudios, que comprendieron 34 ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) y ocho estudios no aleatorizados (no ECA), con 5236 participantes. Se consideró que la mayoría de los ECA tuvieron bajo riesgo de sesgo y que los no ECA tuvieron alto riesgo de sesgo. Las intervenciones incluyeron quimioterapia, reoperación, reirradiación y tratamientos nuevos, ya sea utilizadas solos o en combinación. Para la primera recidiva se incluyeron 11 intervenciones en el metanálisis en red (MAR) para la supervivencia general (SG), y ocho para la supervivencia sin progresión (SSP). La lomustina (LOM; también conocida como CCNU) fue el comparador más frecuente y se utilizó como tratamiento de referencia. Ningún estudio en el MAR evaluó la cirugía, la reirradiación, la PCV (procarbazina, lomustina, vincristina), la reexposición a TMZ o el mejor tratamiento de apoyo. No fue posible realizar un MAR para una segunda o posterior recidiva debido a que los datos no fueron suficientes. Los datos de calidad de vida fueron escasos. Primera recidiva (hallazgos del MAR) La mediana de la SG en los estudios incluidos en el MAR varió entre 5,5 y 12,6 meses y la mediana de la supervivencia sin progresión (SSP) varió entre 1,5 y 4,2 meses. No se encontró evidencia de certeza alta de que los tratamientos probados fueran mejores que la lomustina. Estos tratamientos incluyeron los siguientes. Bevacizumab más lomustina: La evidencia indicó probablemente poca o ninguna diferencia en la SG entre el bevacizumab (BEV) combinado con lomustina (LOM) y la monoterapia con LOM (cociente de riesgos instantáneo [CRI] 0,91; 0,75 a 1,10; evidencia de certeza moderada), aunque BEV + LOM puede mejorar la SSP (CRI 0,57; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 0,44 a 0,74; evidencia de certeza baja). Monoterapia con bevacizumab: La evidencia de certeza baja indicó que puede haber poca o ninguna diferencia en la SG (CRI 1,22; IC del 95%: 0,84 a 1,76) y la SSP (CRI 0,90; IC del 95%: 0,58 a 1,38; evidencia de certeza baja) entre las monoterapias con BEV y LOM; se necesita más evidencia sobre el BEV. Regorafenib (REG): El REG puede mejorar la SG en comparación con la LOM (CRI 0,50; IC del 95%: 0,33 a 0,76; evidencia de certeza baja). La evidencia sobre la SSP fue de certeza muy baja y se necesita más evidencia sobre el REG. Temozolomida (TMZ) más Depatux­M (ABT414): En cuanto a la SG, evidencia de certeza baja indicó que TMZ más ABT414 puede ser más efectiva que LOM (CRI 0,66; IC del 95%: 0,47 a 0,92) y puede ser más efectiva que BEV (CRI 0,54; IC del 95%: 0,33 a 0,89; evidencia de certeza baja). Lo anterior se puede deber solamente al componente de TMZ, y se necesita más evidencia. Fotemustina (FOM): FOM y LOM pueden tener efectos similares sobre la SG (CRI 0,89; IC del 95%: 0,51 a 1,57, evidencia de certeza baja). Bevacizumab e irinotecan (IRI): La evidencia sobre BEV + irinotecan (IRI) versus LOM para la SG y la SSP no está clara y probablemente hay poca o ninguna diferencia entre BEV + IRI versus la monoterapia con BEV (SG: CRI 0,95; IC del 95%: 0,70 a 1,30; evidencia de certeza moderada). Cuando los tratamientos se clasificaron según la SG, FOM se clasificó primero, BEV + LOM segundo, LOM tercero, BEV + IRI cuarto, y BEV quinto. La clasificación no tiene en cuenta la certeza de la evidencia, lo que también indica que puede haber poca o ninguna diferencia entre FOM y LOM. Otros tratamientos Tres estudios evaluaron la reoperación versus ninguna reoperación, con o sin reirradiación y quimioterapia, e indicaron posibles ventajas en la supervivencia con la reoperación, en el contexto de poder seleccionar candidatos adecuados para esta intervención. Un tratamiento con cannabinoides en las primeras etapas de evaluación, en combinación con TMZ, merece evaluación adicional. Segunda o posterior recidiva La evidencia limitada de tres estudios heterogéneos indicó que la radioterapia con o sin BEV puede tener un efecto beneficioso sobre la supervivencia, pero se necesita más evidencia. La evidencia no fue suficiente para establecer conclusiones sobre la mejor dosis de radioterapia. Otra evidencia indicó que puede haber poca diferencia en la supervivencia con los campos de tratamiento del tumor en comparación con la mejor opción de tratamiento del médico. No se encontró evidencia fiable sobre el mejor tratamiento de apoyo. Eventos adversos graves (EAG) La combinación BEV + LOM se asoció con un riesgo significativamente mayor de EAG que la monoterapia con LOM (RR 2,51; IC del 95%: 1,72 a 3,66; evidencia de certeza alta), y se clasificó peor junto con cediranib + LOM (RR 2,51; IC del 95%: 1,29 a 4,90; evidencia de certeza alta). LOM se clasificó como el mejor y REG como el segundo mejor. Agregar nuevos tratamientos al BEV se asoció generalmente con un mayor riesgo de eventos adversos graves, en comparación con BEV solo. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: Para el tratamiento de la primera recidiva del GBM en personas tratadas previamente con cirugía y quimiorradioterapia estándar, los tratamientos combinados evaluados no mejoraron la supervivencia general en comparación con la monoterapia con LOM, y a menudo se asociaron con un mayor riesgo de eventos adversos graves. Hay evidencia limitada que indica que la reoperación con o sin reirradiación y quimioterapia puede ser adecuada para candidatos seleccionados. La evidencia sobre la segunda recidiva es escasa. La reirradiación con o sin bevacizumab puede ser de valor en determinados individuos, pero se necesita más evidencia.

Iron preparations for women of reproductive age with iron deficiency anaemia in pregnancy (FRIDA): a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Numerous iron preparations are available for the treatment of iron deficiency anaemia in pregnancy. We aimed to provide a summary of the effectiveness and safety of iron preparations used in this setting. METHODS: We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, trial registers, and grey literature for trials published in any language from Jan 1, 2011, to Feb 28, 2021. We included trials including pregnant women with iron deficiency anaemia and evaluating iron preparations, irrespective of administration route, with at least 60 mg of elemental iron, in comparison with another iron or non-iron preparation. Three authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and did a risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane tool (version 1.0). The primary outcome was the effectiveness of iron preparations, evaluated by changes in haemoglobin concentration at 4 weeks from baseline. The secondary outcomes were change in serum ferritin concentration at 4 weeks from baseline and treatment-related severe and non-severe adverse events. We did random-effects pairwise and network meta-analyses. Side-effects were reported descriptively for each trial. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018100822. FINDINGS: Among 3037 records screened, 128 full-text articles were further assessed for eligibility. Of the 53 eligible trials (reporting on 9145 women), 30 (15 interventions; 3243 women) contributed data to the network meta-analysis for haemoglobin and 15 (nine interventions; 1396 women) for serum ferritin. The risk of bias varied across the trials contributing to network meta-analysis, with 22 of 30 trials in the network meta-analysis for haemoglobin judged to have a high or medium global risk of bias. Compared with oral ferrous sulfate, intravenous iron sucrose improved both haemoglobin (mean difference 7·17 g/L, 95% CI 2·62-11·73; seven trials) and serum ferritin (mean difference 49·66 µg/L, 13·63-85·69; four trials), and intravenous ferric carboxymaltose improved haemoglobin (mean difference 8·52 g/L, 0·51-16·53; one trial). The evidence for other interventions compared with ferrous sulfate was insufficient. The most common side-effects with oral iron preparations were gastrointestinal effects (nausea, vomiting, and altered bowel movements). Side-effects were less common with parenteral iron preparations, although these included local pain, skin irratation, and, on rare occasions, allergic reactions. INTERPRETATION: Iron preparations for treatment of iron deficiency anaemia in pregnancy vary in effectiveness, with good evidence of benefit for intravenous iron sucrose and some evidence for intravenous ferric carboxymaltose. Clinicians and policy makers should consider the effectiveness of individual preparations before administration, to ensure effective treatment. FUNDING: None.

A framework for prospective, adaptive meta-analysis (FAME) of aggregate data from randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The vast majority of systematic reviews are planned retrospectively, once most eligible trials have completed and reported, and are based on aggregate data that can be extracted from publications. Prior knowledge of trial results can introduce bias into both review and meta-analysis methods, and the omission of unpublished data can lead to reporting biases. We present a collaborative framework for prospective, adaptive meta-analysis (FAME) of aggregate data to provide results that are less prone to bias. Also, with FAME, we monitor how evidence from trials is accumulating, to anticipate the earliest opportunity for a potentially definitive meta-analysis. METHODOLOGY: We developed and piloted FAME alongside 4 systematic reviews in prostate cancer, which allowed us to refine the key principles. These are to: (1) start the systematic review process early, while trials are ongoing or yet to report; (2) liaise with trial investigators to develop a detailed picture of all eligible trials; (3) prospectively assess the earliest possible timing for reliable meta-analysis based on the accumulating aggregate data; (4) develop and register (or publish) the systematic review protocol before trials produce results and seek appropriate aggregate data; (5) interpret meta-analysis results taking account of both available and unavailable data; and (6) assess the value of updating the systematic review and meta-analysis. These principles are illustrated via a hypothetical review and their application to 3 published systematic reviews. CONCLUSIONS: FAME can reduce the potential for bias, and produce more timely, thorough and reliable systematic reviews of aggregate data.

Maternal trauma due to motor vehicle crashes and pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review and quantify the effect of motor vehicle crashes (MVCs) in pregnancy on maternal and offspring outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational data searched from inception until 1 July 2018. Searching was from June to August 2018 in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Latin-American and Caribbean System on Health Sciences Information, Scientific Electronic Library Online, TRANSPORT, International Road Research Documentation, European Conference of Ministers of Transportation Databases, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register. PARTICIPANTS: Studies were selected if they focused on the effects of exposure MVC during pregnancy versus non-exposure, with follow-up to verify outcomes in various settings, including secondary care, collision and emergency, and inpatient care. DATA SYNTHESIS: For incidence data, we calculated a pooled estimate per 1000 women. For comparison of outcomes between women involved and those not involved in MVC, we calculated ORs with 95% CIs. Where possible, we statistically pooled the data using the random-effects model. The quality of studies used in the comparative analysis was assessed with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: We included 19 studies (3 222 066 women) of which the majority was carried out in high-income countries (18/19). In population-level studies of women involved in MVC, maternal death occurred in 3.6 per 1000 (95% CI 0.25-10.42; 3 studies, 12 000 women; Tau=1.77), and fetal death or stillbirth in 6.6 per 1000 (95% CI 3.81-10.12; 8 studies, 47 992 women; I2=92.6%). Pooled incidence of complications per 1000 women involved in MVC was labour induction (276.43), preterm delivery (191.90) and caesarean section (166.65). Compared with women not involved in MVC, those involved had increased odds of placental abruption (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.27-1.63; 3 studies, 1 500 825 women) and maternal death (OR 202.27; 95% CI 110.60-369.95; 1 study, 1 094 559 women). CONCLUSION: Pregnant women involved in MVC were at higher risk of maternal death and complications than those not involved. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018100788.

Methods used to assess outcome consistency in clinical studies: A literature-based evaluation.

Evaluation studies of outcomes used in clinical research and their consistency are appearing more frequently in the literature, as a key part of the core outcome set (COS) development. Current guidance suggests such evaluation studies should use systematic review methodology as their default. We aimed to examine the methods used. We searched the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database (up to May 2019) supplementing it with additional resources. We included evaluation studies of outcome consistency in clinical studies across health subjects and used a subset of A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 (items 1-9) to assess their methods. Of 93 included evaluation studies of outcome consistency (90 full reports, three summaries), 91% (85/93) reported performing literature searches in at least one bibliographic database, and 79% (73/93) was labelled as a "systematic review". The evaluations varied in terms of satisfying AMSTAR 2 criteria, such that 81/93 (87%) had implemented PICO in the research question, whereas only 5/93 (6%) had included the exclusions list. None of the evaluation studies explained how inconsistency of outcomes was detected, however, 80/90 (88%) concluded inconsistency in individual outcomes (66%, 55/90) or outcome domains (20%, 18/90). Methods used in evaluation studies of outcome consistency in clinical studies differed considerably. Despite frequent being labelled as a "systematic review", adoption of systematic review methodology is selective. While the impact on COS development is unknown, authors of these studies should refrain from labelling them as "systematic review" and focus on ensuring that the methods used to generate the different outcomes and outcome domains are reported transparently.