Bone-modifying agents for reducing bone loss in women with early and locally advanced breast cancer: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL)-inhibitors are amongst the bone-modifying agents used as supportive treatment in women with breast cancer who do not have bone metastases. These agents aim to reduce bone loss and the risk of fractures. Bisphosphonates have demonstrated survival benefits, particularly in postmenopausal women. OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the effects of different bone-modifying agents as supportive treatment to reduce bone mineral density loss and osteoporotic fractures in women with breast cancer without bone metastases and generate a ranking of treatment options using network meta-analyses (NMAs). SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies by electronically searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase until January 2023. We searched various trial registries and screened abstracts of conference proceedings and reference lists of identified trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing different bisphosphonates and RANKL-inihibitors with each other or against no further treatment or placebo for women with breast cancer without bone metastases. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies and certainty of evidence using GRADE. Outcomes were bone mineral density, quality of life, overall fractures, overall survival and adverse events. We conducted NMAs and generated treatment rankings. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-seven trials (35,163 participants) fulfilled our inclusion criteria; 34 trials (33,793 participants) could be considered in the NMA (8 different treatment options). Bone mineral density We estimated that the bone mineral density of participants with no treatment/placebo measured as total T-score was -1.34. Evidence from the NMA (9 trials; 1166 participants) suggests that treatment with ibandronate (T-score -0.77; MD 0.57, 95% CI -0.05 to 1.19) may slightly increase bone mineral density (low certainty) and treatment with zoledronic acid (T-score -0.45; MD 0.89, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.16) probably slightly increases bone mineral density compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Risedronate (T-score -1.08; MD 0.26, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.84) may result in little to no difference compared to no treatment/placebo (low certainty). We are uncertain whether alendronate (T-score 2.36; MD 3.70, 95% CI -2.01 to 9.41) increases bone mineral density compared to no treatment/placebo (very low certainty). Quality of life No quantitative analyses could be performed for quality of life, as only three studies reported this outcome. All three studies showed only minimal differences between the respective interventions examined. Overall fracture rate We estimated that 70 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo had fractures. Evidence from the NMA (16 trials; 19,492 participants) indicates that treatment with clodronate or ibandronate (42 of 1000; RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.92; 40 of 1000; RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.86, respectively) decreases the number of fractures compared to no treatment/placebo (high certainty). Denosumab or zoledronic acid (51 of 1000; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.01; 55 of 1000; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.11, respectively) probably slightly decreases the number of fractures; and risedronate (39 of 1000; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.16) probably decreases the number of fractures compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Pamidronate (106 of 1000; RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.06) probably increases the number of fractures compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Overall survival We estimated that 920 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo survived overall. Evidence from the NMA (17 trials; 30,991 participants) suggests that clodronate (924 of 1000; HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.17), denosumab (927 of 1000; HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.21), ibandronate (915 of 1000; HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.34) and zoledronic acid (925 of 1000; HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.14) may result in little to no difference regarding overall survival compared to no treatment/placebo (low certainty). Additionally, we are uncertain whether pamidronate (905 of 1000; HR 1.20, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.78) decreases overall survival compared to no treatment/placebo (very low certainty). Osteonecrosis of the jaw We estimated that 1 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo developed osteonecrosis of the jaw. Evidence from the NMA (12 trials; 23,527 participants) suggests that denosumab (25 of 1000; RR 24.70, 95% CI 9.56 to 63.83), ibandronate (6 of 1000; RR 5.77, 95% CI 2.04 to 16.35) and zoledronic acid (9 of 1000; RR 9.41, 95% CI 3.54 to 24.99) probably increases the occurrence of osteonecrosis of the jaw compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Additionally, clodronate (3 of 1000; RR 2.65, 95% CI 0.83 to 8.50) may increase the occurrence of osteonecrosis of the jaw compared to no treatment/placebo (low certainty). Renal impairment We estimated that 14 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo developed renal impairment. Evidence from the NMA (12 trials; 22,469 participants) suggests that ibandronate (28 of 1000; RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.88) probably increases the occurrence of renal impairment compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Zoledronic acid (21 of 1000; RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.58) probably increases the occurrence of renal impairment while clodronate (12 of 1000; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.39) and denosumab (11 of 1000; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.19) probably results in little to no difference regarding the occurrence of renal impairment compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When considering bone-modifying agents for managing bone loss in women with early or locally advanced breast cancer, one has to balance between efficacy and safety. Our findings suggest that bisphosphonates (excluding alendronate and pamidronate) or denosumab compared to no treatment or placebo likely results in increased bone mineral density and reduced fracture rates. Our survival analysis that included pre and postmenopausal women showed little to no difference regarding overall survival. These treatments may lead to more adverse events. Therefore, forming an overall judgement of the best ranked bone-modifying agent is challenging. More head-to-head comparisons, especially comparing denosumab with any bisphosphonate, are needed to address gaps and validate the findings of this review.

Daratumumab and antineoplastic therapy versus antineoplastic therapy only for adults with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma ineligible for transplant.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a haematological malignancy that is characterised by proliferation of malignant plasma cells in the bone marrow. For adults ineligible to receive high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant, the recommended treatment combinations in first-line therapy generally consist of combinations of alkylating agents, immunomodulatory drugs, and proteasome inhibitors. Daratumumab is a CD38-targeting, human IgG1k monoclonal antibody recently developed and approved for the treatment of people diagnosed with MM. Multiple myeloma cells uniformly over-express CD-38, a 46-kDa type II transmembrane glycoprotein, making myeloma cells a specific target for daratumumab. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of daratumumab in addition to antineoplastic therapy compared to antineoplastic therapy only for adults with newly diagnosed MM who are ineligible for transplant. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, EU Clinical Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and conference proceedings from 2010 to September 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared treatment with daratumumab added to antineoplastic therapy versus the same antineoplastic therapy alone in adult participants with a confirmed diagnosis of MM. We excluded quasi-randomised trials and trials with less than 80% adult participants, unless there were subgroup analyses of adults with MM. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the results of the search strategies for eligibility. We documented the process of study selection in a flowchart as recommended by the PRISMA statement. We evaluated the risk of bias in included studies with RoB 1 and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We followed standard Cochrane methodological procedures. MAIN RESULTS: We included four open-label, two-armed randomised controlled trials (34 publications) involving a total of 1783 participants. The ALCYONE, MAIA, and OCTANS trials were multicentre trials conducted worldwide in middle- and high-income countries. The AMaRC 03-16 trial was conducted in one high-income country, Australia. The mean age of participants was 69 to 74 years, and the proportion of female participants was between 40% and 54%. All trials evaluated antineoplastic therapies with or without daratumumab. In the ALCYONE and OCTANS trials, daratumumab was combined with bortezomib and melphalan-prednisone. In the AMaRC 03-16 study, it was combined with bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone, and in the MAIA study, it was combined with lenalidomide and dexamethasone. None of the included studies was blinded (high risk of performance and detection bias). One study was published as abstract only, therefore the risk of bias for most criteria was unclear. The other three studies were published as full texts. Apart from blinding, the risk of bias was low for these studies. Overall survival Treatment with daratumumab probably increases overall survival when compared to the same treatment without daratumumab (hazard ratio (HR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.76, 2 studies, 1443 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). After a follow-up period of 36 months, 695 per 1000 participants survived in the control group, whereas 792 per 1000 participants survived in the daratumumab group (95% CI 758 to 825). Progression-free survival Treatment with daratumumab probably increases progression-free survival when compared to treatment without daratumumab (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.58, 3 studies, 1663 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). After a follow-up period of 24 months, progression-free survival was reached in 494 per 1000 participants in the control group versus 713 per 1000 participants in the daratumumab group (95% CI 664 to 760). Quality of life Treatment with daratumumab may result in a very small increase in quality of life after 12 months, evaluated on the EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status scale (GHS), when compared to treatment without daratumumab (mean difference 2.19, 95% CI -0.13 to 4.51, 3 studies, 1096 participants, low-certainty evidence). The scale is from 0 to 100, with a higher value indicating a better quality of life. On-study mortality Treatment with daratumumab probably decreases on-study mortality when compared to treatment without daratumumab (risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.83, 3 studies, 1644 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). After the longest follow-up available (12 to 72 months), 366 per 1000 participants in the control group and 264 per 1000 participants in the daratumumab group died (95% CI 227 to 304). Serious adverse events Treatment with daratumumab probably increases serious adverse events when compared to treatment without daratumumab (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.37, 3 studies, 1644 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). After the longest follow-up available (12 to 72 months), 505 per 1000 participants in the control group versus 596 per 1000 participants in the daratumumab group experienced serious adverse events (95% CI 515 to 692). Adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grade ≥ 3) Treatment with daratumumab probably results in little to no difference in adverse events (CTCAE grade ≥ 3) when compared to treatment without daratumumab (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.02, 3 studies, 1644 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). After the longest follow-up available (12 to 72 months), 953 per 1000 participants in the control group versus 963 per 1000 participants in the daratumumab group experienced adverse events (CTCAE grade ≥ 3) (95% CI 943 to 972). Treatment with daratumumab probably increases the risk of infections (CTCAE grade ≥ 3) when compared to treatment without daratumumab (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.78, 3 studies, 1644 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). After the longest follow-up available (12 to 72 months), 224 per 1000 participants in the control group versus 340 per 1000 participants in the daratumumab group experienced infections (CTCAE grade ≥ 3) (95% CI 291 to 399). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall analysis of four studies showed a potential benefit for daratumumab in terms of overall survival and progression-free survival and a slight potential benefit in quality of life. Participants treated with daratumumab probably experience increased serious adverse events. There were likely no differences between groups in adverse events (CTCAE grade ≥ 3); however, there are probably more infections (CTCAE grade ≥ 3) in participants treated with daratumumab. We identified six ongoing studies which might strengthen the certainty of evidence in a future update of this review.

Patient-reported outcomes in Hodgkin lymphoma trials: a systematic review.

Background: Lymphoma treatment can lead to long-term consequences such as fatigue, infertility and organ damage. In clinical trials, survival outcomes, clinical response and toxicity are extensively reported while the assessment of treatment on quality of life (QoL) and symptoms is often lacking. Objective: We evaluated the use and frequency of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and their consistency of reporting. Methods: MEDLINE, CENTRAL and trial registries for RCTs investigating HL were systematically searched from 01/01/2016 to 31/05/2022. Following trial selection, trial, patient characteristics and outcome data on the use of PRO measures (PROMs) and reporting of PROs using a pre-defined extraction form were extracted. To assess reporting consistency, trial registries, protocols and publications were compared. Results: We identified 4,222 records. Following screening, a total of 317 reports were eligible for full-text evaluation. One hundred sixty-six reports of 51 ongoing/completed trials were included, of which 41% of trials were completed and 49% were ongoing based on registry entries. Full-text or abstract were available for 33 trials. Seventy percent of trials were conducted in the newly diagnosed disease setting, the majority with advanced HL. In 32 trials with published follow-up data, the median follow-up was 5.2 years. Eighteen (35%) completed/ongoing trials had mentioned PRO assessment in registry entries, protocol or publications. Twelve trials (67%) had published results and only 6 trials (50%) reported on PROs in part with the exception of 1 trial where PROs were evaluated as secondary/exploratory outcome. The most referenced global PROM was the EORTC-QLQ-C30 (12 studies), the EQ-5D (3 studies) and the FACT-Neurotoxicity (3 studies). FACT-Lymphoma, a disease-specific PROM for non-HL was mentioned in one ongoing trial. None of the trials referenced the EORTC QLQ-HL27, another disease-specific PROM developed specifically for HL patient's QoL assessment. Discussions: Only one-third of RCTs in HL report PROs as an outcome and only half present the outcome in subsequent publications, showcasing the underreporting of PROs in trials. Disease-specific PROMs are underutilized in the assessment of QoL in HL patients. Guidance on the assessment of PROs is needed to inform on comprehensive outcomes important to patients. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=391552, identifier CRD42023391552.

Higher Risk of Many Physical Health Conditions in Sexual Minority Men: Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in Gay- and Bisexual-Identified Compared with Heterosexual-Identified Men.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to provide a systematic review and, where possible, meta-analysis on the prevalence of physical health conditions in sexual minority men (SMM, i.e., gay- and bisexual-identified men) compared with heterosexual-identified men. Methods: A systematic literature search in the databases MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Web of Science was conducted on epidemiological studies on physical health conditions, classified in the Global Burden of Disease project and published between 2000 and 2021. Meta-analyses comparing odds ratios were calculated. Results: In total, 23,649 abstracts were screened, and 32 studies were included in the systematic review. Main findings were that (1) Largest differences in prevalence by sexual identity were found for chronic respiratory diseases, particularly asthma: overall, SMM were significantly almost 50% more likely to suffer from asthma than heterosexual men. (2) Evidence of higher prevalence was also found for chronic kidney diseases and headache disorders in gay men and for hepatitis B/C in both gay and bisexual men. (3) We found an overall trend that bisexual men were more affected by some of the physical health conditions compared with gay men (e.g., cardiovascular diseases, asthma). However, regarding cancer, headache disorders, and hepatitis, gay men were more affected. Conclusion: We found evidence of physical health disparities by sexual identity, suggesting more health issues in SMM. Since some of these findings rely on few comparisons or small samples of SMM only, this review is intended to be a vehement plea for routinely including sexual identity assessment in health research and clinical practice.

Comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis on physical health conditions in lesbian- and bisexual-identified women compared with heterosexual-identified women.

BACKGROUND: Sexual minority individuals experience discrimination, leading to mental health disparities. Physical health disparities have not been examined to the same extent in systematic reviews so far. OBJECTIVES: To provide a systematic review and, where possible, meta-analyses on the prevalence of physical health conditions in sexual minority women (i.e. lesbian- and bisexual-identified women) compared to heterosexual-identified women. DESIGN: The study design is a systematic review with meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES AND METHODS: A systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases was conducted on epidemiologic studies on physical health conditions, classified in the Global Burden of Disease project, published between 2000 and 2021. Meta-analyses pooling odds ratios were calculated. RESULTS: In total, 23,649 abstracts were screened and 44 studies were included in the systematic review. Meta-analyses were run for arthritis, asthma, back pain, cancer, chronic kidney diseases, diabetes, headache disorders, heart attacks, hepatitis, hypertension, and stroke. Most significant differences in prevalence by sexual identity were found for chronic respiratory conditions, especially asthma. Overall, sexual minority women were significantly 1.5-2 times more likely to have asthma than heterosexual women. Furthermore, evidence of higher prevalence in sexual minority compared to heterosexual women was found for back pain, headaches/migraines, hepatitis B/C, periodontitis, urinary tract infections, and acne. In contrast, bisexual women had lower cancer rates. Overall, sexual minority women had lower odds of heart attacks, diabetes, and hypertension than heterosexual women (in terms of diabetes and hypertension possibly due to non-consideration of pregnancy-related conditions). CONCLUSION: We found evidence for physical health disparities by sexual identity. Since some of these findings rely on few comparisons only, this review emphasizes the need for routinely including sexual identity assessment in health research and clinical practice. Providing a more detailed picture of the prevalence of physical health conditions in sexual minority women may ultimately contribute to reducing health disparities.

Determinants of passive antibody efficacy in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials of passive antibodies as treatment and prophylaxis for COVID-19 have reported variable efficacy. However, the determinants of efficacy have not been identified. We aimed to assess how the dose and timing of administration affect treatment outcome. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we extracted data from published studies of passive antibody treatment from Jan 1, 2019, to Jan 31, 2023, that were identified by searching multiple databases, including MEDLINE, PubMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We included only randomised controlled trials of passive antibody administration for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. To compare administered antibody dose between different treatments, we used data on in-vitro neutralisation titres to normalise dose by antibody potency. We used mixed-effects regression and model fitting to analyse the relationship between timing, dose and efficacy. FINDINGS: We found 58 randomised controlled trials that investigated passive antibody therapies for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. Earlier clinical stage at treatment initiation was highly predictive of the efficacy of both monoclonal antibodies (p<0·0001) and convalescent plasma therapy (p=0·030) in preventing progression to subsequent stages, with either prophylaxis or treatment in outpatients showing the greatest effects. For the treatment of outpatients with COVID-19, we found a significant association between the dose administered and efficacy in preventing hospitalisation (relative risk 0·77; p<0·0001). Using this relationship, we predicted that no approved monoclonal antibody was expected to provide more than 30% efficacy against some omicron (B.1.1.529) subvariants, such as BQ.1.1. INTERPRETATION: Early administration before hospitalisation and sufficient doses of passive antibody therapy are crucial to achieving high efficacy in preventing clinical progression. The relationship between dose and efficacy provides a framework for the rational assessment of future passive antibody prophylaxis and treatment strategies for COVID-19. FUNDING: The Australian Government Department of Health, Medical Research Future Fund, National Health and Medical Research Council, the University of New South Wales, Monash University, Haematology Society of Australia and New Zealand, Leukaemia Foundation, and the Victorian Government.

Polyclonal anti-thymocyte globulins for the prophylaxis of graft-versus-host disease after allogeneic stem cell or bone marrow transplantation in adults.

BACKGROUND: Allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (SCT) is an established treatment for many malignant and non-malignant haematological disorders. Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), a condition frequently occurring after an allogeneic SCT, is the result of host tissues being attacked by donor immune cells. It affects more than half of the patients after transplant either as acute and or chronic GVHD. One strategy for the prevention of GVHD is the administration of anti-thymocyte globulins (ATGs), a set of polyclonal antibodies directed against a variety of immune cell epitopes, leading to immunosuppression and immunomodulation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of ATG used for the prevention of GVHD in patients undergoing allogeneic SCT with regard to overall survival, incidence and severity of acute and chronic GVHD, incidence of relapse, non-relapse mortality, graft failure and adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: For this update we searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, trial registers and conference proceedings on the 18th November 2022 along with reference checking and contacting study authors to identify additional studies. We did not apply language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the impact of ATG on GVHD prophylaxis in adults suffering from haematological diseases and undergoing allogeneic SCT. The selection criteria were modified from the previous version of this review. Paediatric studies and studies where patients aged < 18 years constituted more than 20 % of the total number were excluded. Treatment arms had to differ only in the addition of ATG to the standard GVHD prophylaxis regimen. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration for data collection, extraction and analyses. MAIN RESULTS: For this update we included seven new RCTs, leading to a total of ten studies investigating 1413 participants. All patients had a haematological condition which warranted an allogeneic SCT. The risk of bias was estimated as low for seven and unclear for three studies. ATG probably has little or no influence on overall survival (HR (hazard ratio) 0.93 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.13, nine studies, n = 1249, moderate-certainty evidence)). Estimated absolute effect: 430 surviving people per 1000 people not receiving ATG compared to 456 people surviving per 1000 people receiving the intervention (95 % CI 385 to 522 per 1000 people). ATG results in a reduction in acute GVHD II to IV with relative risk (RR) 0.68 (95 % CI 0.60 to 0.79, 10 studies, n = 1413, high-certainty evidence). Estimated absolute effect: 418 acute GVHD II to IV per 1000 people not receiving ATG compared to 285 per 1000 people receiving the intervention (95 % CI 251 to 331 per 1000 people). Addition of ATG results in a reduction of overall chronic GvHD with a RR of 0.53 (95 % CI 0.45 to 0.61, eight studies, n = 1273, high-certainty evidence). Estimated absolute effect: 506 chronic GVHD per 1000 people not receiving ATG compared to 268 per 1000 people receiving the intervention (95 % CI 228 to 369 per 1000 people). Further data on severe acute GVHD and extensive chronic GVHD are available in the manuscript. ATG probably slightly increases the incidence of relapse with a RR of 1.21 (95 % CI 0.99 to 1.49, eight studies,  n =1315, moderate-certainty evidence). Non relapse mortality is probably slightly or not affected by ATG with an HR of 0.86 (95 % CI 0.67 to 1.11, nine studies, n=1370, moderate-certainty evidence).   ATG prophylaxis may result in no increase in graft failure with a RR of 1.55 (95 % CI 0.54 to 4.44, eight studies, n = 1240, low-certainty evidence).  Adverse events could not be analysed due to the serious heterogeneity in the reporting between the studies, which limited comparability (moderate-certainty evidence) and are reported in a descriptive manner.   Subgroup analyses on ATG types, doses and donor type are available in the manuscript. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review suggests that the addition of ATG during allogeneic SCT probably has little or no influence on overall survival. ATG results in a reduction in the incidence and severity of acute and chronic GvHD. ATG intervention probably slightly increases the incidence of relapse and probably does not affect the non relapse mortality. Graft failure may not be affected by ATG prophylaxis. Analysis of data on adverse events was reported in a narrative manner. A limitation for the analysis was the imprecision in reporting between the studies thereby reducing the confidence in the certainty of evidence.

First-line therapy for adults with advanced renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Since the approval of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, angiogenesis inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the treatment landscape for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has changed fundamentally. Today, combined therapies from different drug categories have a firm place in a complex first-line therapy. Due to the large number of drugs available, it is necessary to identify the most effective therapies, whilst considering their side effects and impact on quality of life (QoL). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare the benefits and harms of first-line therapies for adults with advanced RCC, and to produce a clinically relevant ranking of therapies. Secondary objectives were to maintain the currency of the evidence by conducting continuous update searches, using a living systematic review approach, and to incorporate data from clinical study reports (CSRs). SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings and relevant trial registries up until 9 February 2022. We searched several data platforms to identify CSRs. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating at least one targeted therapy or immunotherapy for first-line treatment of adults with advanced RCC. We excluded trials evaluating only interleukin-2 versus interferon-alpha as well as trials with an adjuvant treatment setting. We also excluded trials with adults who received prior systemic anticancer therapy if more than 10% of participants were previously treated, or if data for untreated participants were not separately extractable. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All necessary review steps (i.e. screening and study selection, data extraction, risk of bias and certainty assessments) were conducted independently by at least two review authors. Our outcomes were overall survival (OS), QoL, serious adverse events (SAEs), progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs), the number of participants who discontinued study treatment due to an AE, and the time to initiation of first subsequent therapy. Where possible, analyses were conducted for the different risk groups (favourable, intermediate, poor) according to the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Score (IMDC) or the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) criteria. Our main comparator was sunitinib (SUN). A hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) lower than 1.0 is in favour of the experimental arm. MAIN RESULTS: We included 36 RCTs and 15,177 participants (11,061 males and 4116 females). Risk of bias was predominantly judged as being 'high' or 'some concerns' across most trials and outcomes. This was mainly due to a lack of information about the randomisation process, the blinding of outcome assessors, and methods for outcome measurements and analyses. Additionally, study protocols and statistical analysis plans were rarely available. Here we present the results for our primary outcomes OS, QoL, and SAEs, and for all risk groups combined for contemporary treatments: pembrolizumab + axitinib (PEM+AXI), avelumab + axitinib (AVE+AXI), nivolumab + cabozantinib (NIV+CAB), lenvatinib + pembrolizumab (LEN+PEM), nivolumab + ipilimumab (NIV+IPI), CAB, and pazopanib (PAZ). Results per risk group and results for our secondary outcomes are reported in the summary of findings tables and in the full text of this review. The evidence on other treatments and comparisons can also be found in the full text. Overall survival (OS) Across risk groups, PEM+AXI (HR 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 1.07, moderate certainty) and NIV+IPI (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.00, moderate certainty) probably improve OS, compared to SUN, respectively. LEN+PEM may improve OS (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.03, low certainty), compared to SUN. There is probably little or no difference in OS between PAZ and SUN (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.32, moderate certainty), and we are uncertain whether CAB improves OS when compared to SUN (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.64, very low certainty). The median survival is 28 months when treated with SUN. Survival may improve to 43 months with LEN+PEM, and probably improves to: 41 months with NIV+IPI, 39 months with PEM+AXI, and 31 months with PAZ. We are uncertain whether survival improves to 34 months with CAB. Comparison data were not available for AVE+AXI and NIV+CAB. Quality of life (QoL) One RCT measured QoL using FACIT-F (score range 0 to 52; higher scores mean better QoL) and reported that the mean post-score was 9.00 points higher (9.86 lower to 27.86 higher, very low certainty) with PAZ than with SUN. Comparison data were not available for PEM+AXI, AVE+AXI, NIV+CAB, LEN+PEM, NIV+IPI, and CAB. Serious adverse events (SAEs) Across risk groups, PEM+AXI probably increases slightly the risk for SAEs (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.85, moderate certainty) compared to SUN. LEN+PEM (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.19, moderate certainty) and NIV+IPI (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.97, moderate certainty) probably increase the risk for SAEs, compared to SUN, respectively. There is probably little or no difference in the risk for SAEs between PAZ and SUN (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.31, moderate certainty). We are uncertain whether CAB reduces or increases the risk for SAEs (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.43, very low certainty) when compared to SUN. People have a mean risk of 40% for experiencing SAEs when treated with SUN. The risk increases probably to: 61% with LEN+PEM, 57% with NIV+IPI, and 52% with PEM+AXI. It probably remains at 40% with PAZ. We are uncertain whether the risk reduces to 37% with CAB. Comparison data were not available for AVE+AXI and NIV+CAB. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Findings concerning the main treatments of interest comes from direct evidence of one trial only, thus results should be interpreted with caution. More trials are needed where these interventions and combinations are compared head-to-head, rather than just to SUN. Moreover, assessing the effect of immunotherapies and targeted therapies on different subgroups is essential and studies should focus on assessing and reporting relevant subgroup data. The evidence in this review mostly applies to advanced clear cell RCC.

The effectiveness of clinical guideline implementation strategies in oncology-a systematic review.

IMPORTANCE: Guideline recommendations do not necessarily translate into changes in clinical practice behaviour or better patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to identify recent clinical guideline implementation strategies in oncology and to determine their effect primarily on patient-relevant outcomes and secondarily on healthcare professionals' adherence. METHODS: A systematic search of five electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, GIN, CENTRAL, CINAHL) was conducted on 16 december 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) assessing the effectiveness of guideline implementation strategies on patient-relevant outcomes (overall survival, quality of life, adverse events) and healthcare professionals' adherence outcomes (screening, referral, prescribing, attitudes, knowledge) in the oncological setting were targeted. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the ROBINS-I tool were used for assessing the risk of bias. Certainty in the evidence was evaluated according to GRADE recommendations. This review was prospectively registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with the identification number CRD42021268593. FINDINGS: Of 1326 records identified, nine studies, five cluster RCTs and four controlled before-and after studies, were included in the narrative synthesis. All nine studies assess the effect of multi-component interventions in 3577 cancer patients and more than 450 oncologists, nurses and medical staff. PATIENT-LEVEL: Educational meetings combined with materials, opinion leaders, audit and feedback, a tailored intervention or academic detailing may have little to no effect on overall survival, quality of life and adverse events of cancer patients compared to no intervention, however, the evidence is either uncertain or very uncertain. PROVIDER-LEVEL: Multi-component interventions may increase or slightly increase guideline adherence regarding screening, referral and prescribing behaviour of healthcare professionals according to guidelines, but the certainty in evidence is low. The interventions may have little to no effect on attitudes and knowledge of healthcare professionals, still, the evidence is very uncertain. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Knowledge and skill accumulation through team-oriented or online educational training and dissemination of materials embedded in multi-component interventions seem to be the most frequently researched guideline implementation strategies in oncology recently. This systematic review provides an overview of recent guideline implementation strategies in oncology, encourages future implementation research in this area and informs policymakers and professional organisations on the development and adoption of implementation strategies.

Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma and Related Entities.

BACKGROUND: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common malignant B-cell neoplasm, with an incidence of 5.6 per 100 000 persons per year and a mean age of onset of approximately 65 years. It is an aggressive type of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma requiring urgent treatment with curative intent. Evidence-based guidelines have not been available to date. METHODS: For this first international evidence-based DLBCL-specific guideline, various systematic literature searches were performed. 5 systematic reviews, 21 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and 36 non-randomized studies were used to formulate 42 recommendations. 142 were formulated on the basis of expert consensus. All recommendations were approved in a structured consensus-finding process. RESULTS: For staging, combined positron emission tomography and computed tomography (PET/CT) should be performed (evidence: a prospective registry study). For all patients with a new diagnosis of DLBCL and without contraindications, R-CHOP based immunochemotherapy (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) should be initiated with curative intent (evidence: RCTs). The individual treatment strategy is tailored to the patient's age and risk constellation. Once immunochemotherapy has been completed, PET/CT should be performed again to check for remission. Patients with PET-positive residual disease that is amenable to radiotherapy should be treated with consolidating irradiation (evidence: retrospective cohort study). CONCLUSION: This clinical practice guideline on the diagnosis, treatment, and followup of patients with DLBCL and related entities provides a standardized clinical management approach, identifies areas where improvement would be desirable, and can serve as a basis for the development of further studies.

Exercise interventions for adults with cancer receiving radiation therapy alone.

BACKGROUND: Radiation therapy (RT) is given to about half of all people with cancer. RT alone is used to treat various cancers at different stages. Although it is a local treatment, systemic symptoms may occur. Cancer- or treatment-related side effects can lead to a reduction in physical activity, physical performance, and quality of life (QoL). The literature suggests that physical exercise can reduce the risk of various side effects of cancer and cancer treatments, cancer-specific mortality, recurrence of cancer, and all-cause mortality. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of exercise plus standard care compared with standard care alone in adults with cancer receiving RT alone. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL, conference proceedings and trial registries up to 26 October 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled people who were receiving RT without adjuvant systemic treatment for any type or stage of cancer. We considered any type of exercise intervention, defined as a planned, structured, repetitive, objective-oriented physical activity programme in addition to standard care. We excluded exercise interventions that involved physiotherapy alone, relaxation programmes, and multimodal approaches that combined exercise with other non-standard interventions such as nutritional restriction. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology and the GRADE approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence. Our primary outcome was fatigue and the secondary outcomes were QoL, physical performance, psychosocial effects, overall survival, return to work, anthropometric measurements, and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: Database searching identified 5875 records, of which 430 were duplicates. We excluded 5324 records and the remaining 121 references were assessed for eligibility. We included three two-arm RCTs with 130 participants. Cancer types were breast and prostate cancer. Both treatment groups received the same standard care, but the exercise groups also participated in supervised exercise programmes several times per week while undergoing RT. Exercise interventions included warm-up, treadmill walking (in addition to cycling and stretching and strengthening exercises in one study), and cool-down. In some analysed endpoints (fatigue, physical performance, QoL), there were baseline differences between exercise and control groups. We were unable to pool the results of the different studies owing to substantial clinical heterogeneity. All three studies measured fatigue. Our analyses, presented below, showed that exercise may reduce fatigue (positive SMD values signify less fatigue; low certainty). • Standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 1.64; 37 participants (fatigue measured with Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI)) • SMD 2.42, 95% CI 1.71 to 3.13; 54 participants (fatigue measured with BFI) • SMD 1.44, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.42; 21 participants (fatigue measured with revised Piper Fatigue Scale) All three studies measured QoL, although one provided insufficient data for analysis. Our analyses, presented below, showed that exercise may have little or no effect on QoL (positive SMD values signify better QoL; low certainty). • SMD 0.40, 95% CI -0.26 to 1.05; 37 participants (QoL measured with Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate) • SMD 0.47, 95% CI -0.40 to 1.34; 21 participants (QoL measured with World Health Organization QoL questionnaire (WHOQOL-BREF)) All three studies measured physical performance. Our analyses of two studies, presented below, showed that exercise may improve physical performance, but we are very unsure about the results (positive SMD values signify better physical performance; very low certainty) • SMD 1.25, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.97; 37 participants (shoulder mobility and pain measured on a visual analogue scale) • SMD⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ 3.13 (95% CI 2.32 to 3.95; 54 participants (physical performance measured with the six-minute walk test) Our analyses of data from the third study showed that exercise may have little or no effect on physical performance measured with the stand-and-sit test, but we are very unsure about the results (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.86, positive SMD values signify better physical performance; 21 participants; very low certainty). Two studies measured psychosocial effects. Our analyses (presented below) showed that exercise may have little or no effect on psychosocial effects, but we are very unsure about the results (positive SMD values signify better psychosocial well-being; very low certainty). • SMD 0.48, 95% CI -0.18 to 1.13; 37 participants (psychosocial effects measured on the WHOQOL-BREF social subscale) • SMD 0.29, 95% CI -0.57 to 1.15; 21 participants (psychosocial effects measured with the Beck Depression Inventory) Two studies recorded adverse events related to the exercise programmes and reported no events. We estimated the certainty of the evidence as very low. No studies reported adverse events unrelated to exercise. No studies reported the other outcomes we intended to analyse (overall survival, anthropometric measurements, return to work). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is little evidence on the effects of exercise interventions in people with cancer who are receiving RT alone. While all included studies reported benefits for the exercise intervention groups in all assessed outcomes, our analyses did not consistently support this evidence. There was low-certainty evidence that exercise improved fatigue in all three studies. Regarding physical performance, our analysis showed very low-certainty evidence of a difference favouring exercise in two studies, and very low-certainty evidence of no difference in one study. We found very low-certainty evidence of little or no difference between the effects of exercise and no exercise on quality of life or psychosocial effects. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for possible outcome reporting bias, imprecision due to small sample sizes in a small number of studies, and indirectness of outcomes. In summary, exercise may have some beneficial outcomes in people with cancer who are receiving RT alone, but the evidence supporting this statement is of low certainty. There is a need for high-quality research on this topic.

The Reporting, Use, and Validity of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Multiple Myeloma in Clinical Trials: A Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are becoming increasingly important in supporting clinical outcomes in clinical trials. In multiple myeloma (MM), PRO measurement is useful to reveal how treatment affects physical, psychosocial, and functional behaviour as well as symptoms and treatment-related adverse events to evaluate the benefit-risk ratio of a particular drug or drug combination. We report the types of PRO instruments used in MM, the frequency in which they are utilised in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and the consistency of their reporting. METHODS: The European Hematology Association (EHA) supports the development of guidelines for the use of PROs in adult patients with haematological malignancies. The first step is the present systematic review of the literature. MEDLINE and CENTRAL were searched for RCTs in MM between 2015 and 2020. Study design, characteristics of MM and its treatment, the primary outcomes, and the types of PRO instrument(s) were extracted using a predefined template. Additionally, in a stepwise approach, it was assessed whether the identified instruments had been validated for multiple myeloma patients, patients with haematological malignancies, or cancer patients. RESULTS: Following screening for RCTs, 283 studies were included for review from 10,707 records retrieved, and 118 of these planned the use of PRO measures. Thirty-eight PRO instruments were reported. The most frequently used instrument (92 studies) was the EORTC QLQ-30. The EORTC-MY20 MM-specific questionnaire was the second most frequently used (50 studies), together with the EQ-5D (50 studies). Only 19 PRO instruments reported were consistent with the trial registry. Furthermore, in 58 publications, the information on PRO instruments differed between the publication and the trial registry. Further, information on PRO in HTA reports was available for 26 studies, of which 18 reports were consistent with the trial registries. Out of the 38 instruments used, six had been validated for patients with multiple myeloma (the most frequently used), six for patients with haematological malignancies, and 10 for cancer patients in general. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that the measurement of PROs in RCTs for MM is underutilised, underreported, and often inconsistent. Guidelines for the appropriate use of PROs in MM are needed to ensure standardisation in selection and reporting. Furthermore, not all PRO instruments identified have been validated for myeloma patients or patients with haematological malignancies. Thus, guidelines for the appropriate use and reporting of PROs are needed in MM to ensure standardisation in the selection and reporting of PROs.

Immunity after COVID-19 vaccination in people with higher risk of compromised immune status: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: High efficacy in terms of protection from severe COVID-19 has been demonstrated for several SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. However, patients with compromised immune status develop a weaker and less stable immune response to vaccination. Strong immune response may not always translate into clinical benefit, therefore it is important to synthesise evidence on modified schemes and types of vaccination in these population subgroups for guiding health decisions. As the literature on COVID-19 vaccines continues to expand, we aimed to scope the literature on multiple subgroups to subsequently decide on the most relevant research questions to be answered by systematic reviews. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of the availability of existing literature on immune response and long-term clinical outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination, and to map this evidence according to the examined populations, specific vaccines, immunity parameters, and their way of determining relevant long-term outcomes and the availability of mapping between immune reactivity and relevant outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Web of Science Core Collection, and the World Health Organization COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease on 6 December 2021.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that published results on immunity outcomes after vaccination with BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, AZD1222, Ad26.COV2.S, Sputnik V or Sputnik Light, BBIBP-CorV, or CoronaVac on predefined vulnerable subgroups such as people with malignancies, transplant recipients, people undergoing renal replacement therapy, and people with immune disorders, as well as pregnant and breastfeeding women, and children. We included studies if they had at least 100 participants (not considering healthy control groups); we excluded case studies and case series. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently and in duplicate onto an online data extraction form. Data were represented as tables and as online maps to show the frequency of studies for each item. We mapped the data according to study design, country of participant origin, patient comorbidity subgroup, intervention, outcome domains (clinical, safety, immunogenicity), and outcomes.  MAIN RESULTS: Out of 25,452 identified records, 318 studies with a total of more than 5 million participants met our eligibility criteria and were included in the review. Participants were recruited mainly from high-income countries between January 2020 and 31 October 2021 (282/318); the majority of studies included adult participants (297/318).  Haematological malignancies were the most commonly examined comorbidity group (N = 54), followed by solid tumours (N = 47), dialysis (N = 48), kidney transplant (N = 43), and rheumatic diseases (N = 28, 17, and 15 for mixed diseases, multiple sclerosis, and inflammatory bowel disease, respectively). Thirty-one studies included pregnant or breastfeeding women. The most commonly administered vaccine was BNT162b2 (N = 283), followed by mRNA-1273 (N = 153), AZD1222 (N = 66), Ad26.COV2.S (N = 42), BBIBP-CorV (N = 15), CoronaVac (N = 14), and Sputnik V (N = 5; no studies were identified for Sputnik Light). Most studies reported outcomes after regular vaccination scheme.  The majority of studies focused on immunogenicity outcomes, especially seroconversion based on binding antibody measurements and immunoglobulin G (IgG) titres (N = 179 and 175, respectively). Adverse events and serious adverse events were reported in 126 and 54 studies, whilst SARS-CoV-2 infection irrespective of severity was reported in 80 studies. Mortality due to SARS-CoV-2 infection was reported in 36 studies. Please refer to our evidence gap maps for more detailed information. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Up to 6 December 2021, the majority of studies examined data on mRNA vaccines administered as standard vaccination schemes (two doses approximately four to eight weeks apart) that report on immunogenicity parameters or adverse events. Clinical outcomes were less commonly reported, and if so, were often reported as a secondary outcome observed in seroconversion or immunoglobulin titre studies. As informed by this scoping review, two effectiveness reviews (on haematological malignancies and kidney transplant recipients) are currently being conducted.

SARS-CoV-2-neutralising monoclonal antibodies to prevent COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are laboratory-produced molecules derived from the B cells of an infected host. They are being investigated as potential prophylaxis to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs, including mAb fragments, to prevent infection with SARS-CoV-2 causing COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases on 27 April 2022. We checked references, searched citations, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs, including mAb fragments, alone or combined, versus an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention, for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) of COVID-19. We excluded studies of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs to treat COVID-19, as these are part of another review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed search results, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane RoB 2. Prioritised outcomes were infection with SARS-CoV-2, development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms, all-cause mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs of 9749 participants who were previously uninfected and unvaccinated at baseline. Median age was 42 to 76 years. Around 20% to 77.5% of participants in the PrEP studies and 35% to 100% in the PEP studies had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19. At baseline, 72.8% to 82.2% were SARS-CoV-2 antibody seronegative. We identified four ongoing studies, and two studies awaiting classification. Pre-exposure prophylaxis Tixagevimab/cilgavimab versus placebo One study evaluated tixagevimab/cilgavimab versus placebo in participants exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, Alpha, Beta, and Delta variant. About 39.3% of participants were censored for efficacy due to unblinding and 13.8% due to vaccination. Within six months, tixagevimab/cilgavimab probably decreases infection with SARS-CoV-2 (risk ratio (RR) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.70; 4685 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), decreases development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.35; 5172 participants; high-certainty evidence), and may decrease admission to hospital (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0 to 0.59; 5197 participants; low-certainty evidence). Tixagevimab/cilgavimab may result in little to no difference on mortality within six months, all-grade AEs, and SAEs (low-certainty evidence). Quality of life was not reported. Casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo One study evaluated casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo in participants who may have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, Alpha, and Delta variant. About 36.5% of participants opted for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and had a mean of 66.1 days between last dose of intervention and vaccination. Within six months, casirivimab/imdevimab may decrease infection with SARS-CoV-2 (RR 0.01, 95% CI 0 to 0.14; 825 seronegative participants; low-certainty evidence) and may decrease development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0 to 0.27; 969 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether casirivimab/imdevimab affects mortality regardless of the SARS-CoV-2 antibody serostatus. Casirivimab/imdevimab may increase all-grade AEs slightly (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.31; 969 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects on grade 3 to 4 AEs and SAEs within six months. Admission to hospital and quality of life were not reported. Postexposure prophylaxis Bamlanivimab versus placebo One study evaluated bamlanivimab versus placebo in participants who may have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type. Bamlanivimab probably decreases infection with SARS-CoV-2 versus placebo by day 29 (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.98; 966 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference on all-cause mortality by day 60 (R 0.83, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.70; 966 participants; low-certainty evidence), may increase all-grade AEs by week eight (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.46; 966 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may increase slightly SAEs (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.91; 966 participants; low-certainty evidence). Development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms, admission to hospital within 30 days, and quality of life were not reported. Casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo One study evaluated casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo in participants who may have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, Alpha, and potentially, but less likely to Delta variant. Within 30 days, casirivimab/imdevimab decreases infection with SARS-CoV-2 (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.48; 1505 participants; high-certainty evidence), development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (broad-term definition) (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.35; 1505 participants; high-certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference on mortality (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.43; 1505 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may result in little to no difference in admission to hospital. Casirivimab/imdevimab may slightly decrease grade 3 to 4 AEs (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.02; 2617 participants; low-certainty evidence), decreases all-grade AEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.80; 2617 participants; high-certainty evidence), and may result in little to no difference on SAEs in participants regardless of SARS-CoV-2 antibody serostatus. Quality of life was not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For PrEP, there is a decrease in development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (high certainty), infection with SARS-CoV-2 (moderate certainty), and admission to hospital (low certainty) with tixagevimab/cilgavimab. There is low certainty of a decrease in infection with SARS-CoV-2, and development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms; and a higher rate for all-grade AEs with casirivimab/imdevimab. For PEP, there is moderate certainty of a decrease in infection with SARS-CoV-2 and low certainty for a higher rate for all-grade AEs with bamlanivimab. There is high certainty of a decrease in infection with SARS-CoV-2, development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms, and a higher rate for all-grade AEs with casirivimab/imdevimab.   Although there is high-to-moderate certainty evidence for some outcomes, it is insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions. These findings only apply to people unvaccinated against COVID-19. They are only applicable to the variants prevailing during the study and not other variants (e.g. Omicron). In vitro, tixagevimab/cilgavimab is effective against Omicron, but there are no clinical data. Bamlanivimab and casirivimab/imdevimab are ineffective against Omicron in vitro. Further studies are needed and publication of four ongoing studies may resolve the uncertainties.

Intravenous iron versus oral iron versus no iron with or without erythropoiesis- stimulating agents (ESA) for cancer patients with anaemia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Anaemia is common among cancer patients and they may require red blood cell transfusions. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) and iron might help in reducing the need for red blood cell transfusions. However, it remains unclear whether the combination of both drugs is preferable compared to using one drug. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the effect of intravenous iron, oral iron or no iron in combination with or without ESAs to prevent or alleviate anaemia in cancer patients and to generate treatment rankings using network meta-analyses (NMAs). SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies by searching bibliographic databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase; until June 2021). We also searched various registries, conference proceedings and reference lists of identified trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing intravenous, oral or no iron, with or without ESAs for the prevention or alleviation of anaemia resulting from chemotherapy, radiotherapy, combination therapy or the underlying malignancy in cancer patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes were on-study mortality, number of patients receiving red blood cell transfusions, number of red blood cell units, haematological response, overall mortality and adverse events. We conducted NMAs and generated treatment rankings. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Ninety-six trials (25,157 participants) fulfilled our inclusion criteria; 62 trials (24,603 participants) could be considered in the NMA (12 different treatment options). Here we present the comparisons of ESA with or without iron and iron alone versus no treatment. Further results and subgroup analyses are described in the full text. On-study mortality We estimated that 92 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia died up to 30 days after the active study period. Evidence from NMA (55 trials; 15,074 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (12 of 1000; risk ratio (RR) 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 2.29; low certainty) or oral iron (34 of 1000; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.01 to 27.38; low certainty) may decrease or increase and ESA alone (103 of 1000; RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.35; moderate certainty) probably slightly increases on-study mortality. Additionally, treatment with intravenous iron alone (271 of 1000; RR 2.95, 95% CI 0.71 to 12.34; low certainty) may increase and oral iron alone (24 of 1000; RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.00 to 19.73; low certainty) may increase or decrease on-study mortality. Haematological response We estimated that 90 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia had a haematological response. Evidence from NMA (31 trials; 6985 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (604 of 1000; RR 6.71, 95% CI 4.93 to 9.14; moderate certainty), ESA and oral iron (527 of 1000; RR 5.85, 95% CI 4.06 to 8.42; moderate certainty), and ESA alone (467 of 1000; RR 5.19, 95% CI 4.02 to 6.71; moderate certainty) probably increases haematological response. Additionally, treatment with oral iron alone may increase haematological response (153 of 1000; RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.69 to 4.20; low certainty). Red blood cell transfusions We estimated that 360 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia needed at least one transfusion. Evidence from NMA (69 trials; 18,684 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (158 of 1000; RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.63; moderate certainty), ESA and oral iron (144 of 1000; RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.66; moderate certainty) and ESA alone (212 of 1000; RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.69; moderate certainty) probably decreases the need for transfusions. Additionally, treatment with intravenous iron alone (268 of 1000; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.28; low certainty) and with oral iron alone (333 of 1000; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.57; low certainty) may decrease or increase the need for transfusions. Overall mortality We estimated that 347 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia died overall. Low-certainty evidence from NMA (71 trials; 21,576 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (507 of 1000; RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.43) or oral iron (482 of 1000; RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.22) and intravenous iron alone (521 of 1000; RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.63 to 3.56) or oral iron alone (534 of 1000; RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.66 to 3.56) may decrease or increase overall mortality. Treatment with ESA alone may lead to little or no difference in overall mortality (357 of 1000; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.10; low certainty). Thromboembolic events We estimated that 36 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia developed thromboembolic events. Evidence from NMA (50 trials; 15,408 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (66 of 1000; RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.98 to 3.41; moderate certainty) probably slightly increases and with ESA alone (66 of 1000; RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.47; high certainty) slightly increases the number of thromboembolic events. None of the trials reported results on the other comparisons. Thrombocytopenia or haemorrhage We estimated that 76 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia developed thrombocytopenia/haemorrhage. Evidence from NMA (13 trials, 2744 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA alone probably leads to little or no difference in thrombocytopenia/haemorrhage (76 of 1000; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.48; moderate certainty). None of the trials reported results on other comparisons. Hypertension We estimated that 10 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia developed hypertension. Evidence from NMA (24 trials; 8383 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA alone probably increases the number of hypertensions (29 of 1000; RR 2.93, 95% CI 1.19 to 7.25; moderate certainty). None of the trials reported results on the other comparisons. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When considering ESAs with iron as prevention for anaemia, one has to balance between efficacy and safety. Results suggest that treatment with ESA and iron probably decreases number of blood transfusions, but may increase mortality and the number of thromboembolic events. For most outcomes the different comparisons within the network were not fully connected, so ranking of all treatments together was not possible. More head-to-head comparisons including all evaluated treatment combinations are needed to fill the gaps and prove results of this review.

Effectiveness, immunogenicity, and safety of COVID-19 vaccines for individuals with hematological malignancies: a systematic review.

The efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with hematological malignancies (HM) appears limited due to disease and treatment-associated immune impairment. We conducted a systematic review of prospective studies published from 10/12/2021 onwards in medical databases to assess clinical efficacy parameters, humoral and cellular immunogenicity and adverse events (AE) following two doses of COVID-19 approved vaccines. In 57 eligible studies reporting 7393 patients, clinical outcomes were rarely reported and rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection (range 0-11.9%), symptomatic disease (0-2.7%), hospital admission (0-2.8%), or death (0-0.5%) were low. Seroconversion rates ranged from 38.1-99.1% across studies with the highest response rate in myeloproliferative diseases and the lowest in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Patients with B-cell depleting treatment had lower seroconversion rates as compared to other targeted treatments or chemotherapy. The vaccine-induced T-cell response was rarely and heterogeneously reported (26.5-85.9%). Similarly, AEs were rarely reported (0-50.9% ≥1 AE, 0-7.5% ≥1 serious AE). In conclusion, HM patients present impaired humoral and cellular immune response to COVID-19 vaccination with disease and treatment specific response patterns. In light of the ongoing pandemic with the easing of mitigation strategies, new approaches to avert severe infection are urgently needed for this vulnerable patient population that responds poorly to current COVID-19 vaccine regimens.

Antifungal prophylaxis in adult patients with acute myeloid leukaemia treated with novel targeted therapies: a systematic review and expert consensus recommendation from the European Hematology Association.

On the basis of improved overall survival, treatment guidelines strongly recommend antifungal prophylaxis during remission induction chemotherapy for patients with acute myeloid leukaemia. Many novel targeted agents are metabolised by cytochrome P450, but potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs) and the resulting risk-benefit ratio have not been assessed in clinical trials, leading to uncertainty in clinical management. Consequently, the European Haematology Association commissioned experts in the field of infectious diseases, haematology, oncology, clinical pharmacology, and methodology to develop up-to-date recommendations on the role of antifungal prophylaxis and management of pharmacokinetic DDIs with triazole antifungals. A systematic literature review was performed according to Cochrane methods, and recommendations were developed by use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Evidence to Decision framework. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library, including Central Register of Controlled Trials, for randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews published from inception to March 10, 2020. We excluded studies that were not published in English. Evidence for any identified novel agent that is active against acute myeloid leukaemia was reviewed for the following outcomes: incidence of invasive fungal disease, prolongation of hospitalisation, days spent in intensive-care unit, mortality due to invasive fungal disease, quality of life, and potential DDIs. Recommendations and consensus statements were compiled for each targeted drug for patients with acute myeloid leukaemia and each specific setting. Evidence-based recommendations were developed for hypomethylating agents, midostaurin, and the venetoclax-hypomethylating agent combination. For all other agents, consensus statements were given for specific therapeutic settings, specifically for the management of patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia, monotherapy, and combination with chemotherapy. Antifungal prophylaxis is recommended with moderate strength in most settings, and strongly recommended if the novel acute myeloid leukaemia agent is administered in combination with intensive induction chemotherapy. For ivosidenib, lestaurtinib, quizartinib, and venetoclax, we moderately recommend adjusting the dose of the antileukaemic agent during administration of triazoles. This is the first guidance supporting clinical decision making on antifungal prophylaxis in recipients of novel targeted drugs for acute myeloid leukaemia. Future studies including therapeutic drug monitoring will need to determine the role of dosage adjustment of novel antileukaemic drugs during concomitant administration of CYP3A4-inhibiting antifungals with respect to adverse effects and remission status.

Patients With Multiple Myeloma or Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a malignant plasma-cell disease that arises on the basis of a so-called monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS). The median age at disease onset is over 70. In Germany, there are approximately eight new cases per 100 000 inhabitants per year, or about 6000 new patients nationwide each year. METHODS: To prepare this clinical practice guideline, a systematic literature review was carried out in medical databases (MEDLINE, CENTRAL), guideline databases (GIN), and the search portal of the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). The recommendations to be issued were based on two international guidelines, 40 dossier evaluations and systematic reviews, 10 randomized controlled trials, and 37 observational studies and finalized in a structured consensus process. RESULTS: Because of its prognostic relevance, the use of the International Staging System (ISS) is recommended to stage MM and related plasma-cell neoplasms. When symptomatic MM is diagnosed, it is recommended to determine the extent of skeletal involvement by whole-body computed tomography. The indications for treatment shall be determined on the basis of the SLiMCRAB criteria; in all patients with MM it is recommended to include the biological (rather than chronological) age in the decisionmaking process. In suitable patients, it is recommended that initial treatment includes high-dose therapy, followed by main - tenance treatment. Even without high-dose treatment, a median progression-free survival of more than three years can be achieved with combination therapies. For the treatment of relapse, combinations of three drugs are more effective than doublet regimens with a median progression-free survival ranging from 10 to 45 months, depending on the study and prior therapy. Following anti-myeloma therapy, it is recommended to promptly offer physical exercise adapted to individual abilities to all patients who have the potential for rehabilitation, so that their quality of life can be sustained and improved. CONCLUSION: This new clinical practice guideline addresses, in particular, the modalities of care that can be offered in addition to systemic antineoplastic therapy. In view of the significant recent advances in the treatment of myeloma, affected patients' quality of life now largely depends on optimized interdisciplinary care.

Assessment of prostate-specific antigen screening: an evidence-based report by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care.

CONTEXT: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing increases prostate cancer diagnoses and reduces long-term disease-specific mortality, but also results in overdiagnoses and treatment-related harms. OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess the benefits and harms of population-based PSA screening and the potential net benefit to inform health policy decision-makers in Germany. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a protocol-guided comprehensive literature search according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. All steps were performed by one or two investigators; any discrepancies were resolved by consensus. To allow subgroup analyses for identifying the optimal screening parameters, the eight national trials conducted under the umbrella of the European Randomised study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) were included as individual trials. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We included a total 11 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 416 000 study participants. For all-cause mortality, we found neither benefit nor harm. PSA screening was associated with a reduced risk of both prostate cancer mortality and the development of metastases. For the outcomes of health-related quality of life, adverse effects and the consequences of false-negative screening results there was no difference; however, this was due to the lack of eligible RCT data. Finally, PSA screening was associated with large numbers of overdiagnoses with adverse downstream consequences of unnecessary treatment (e.g. incontinence, erectile dysfunction) and large numbers of false-positive PSA tests leading to biopsies associated with a small but not negligible risk of complications. Limitations of this assessment include the clinical heterogeneity and methodological limitations of the underlying studies. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of PSA-based prostate cancer screening do not outweigh its harms. We failed to identify eligible screening studies of newer biomarkers, PSA derivatives or modern imaging modalities, which may alter the balance of benefit to harm. PATIENT SUMMARY: In the present study, we reviewed the evidence on the PSA blood test to screen men without symptoms for prostate cancer. We found that the small benefits experienced by some men do not outweigh the harms to many more men.

European Respiratory Society guideline on non-CPAP therapies for obstructive sleep apnoea.

Treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) in adults is evolving, as new therapies have been explored and introduced in clinical practice, while other approaches have been refined or reconsidered. In this European Respiratory Society (ERS) guideline on non-continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapies for OSA, we present recommendations determined by a systematic review of the literature. It is an update of the 2011 ERS statement on non-CPAP therapies, advanced into a clinical guideline. A multidisciplinary group of experts, including pulmonary, surgical, dentistry and ear-nose-throat specialists, methodologists and patient representatives considered the most relevant clinical questions (for both clinicians and patients) relating to the management of OSA. Eight key clinical questions were generated and a systematic review was conducted to identify published randomised clinical trials that answered these questions. We used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations. The resulting guideline addresses gastric bypass surgery, custom-made dual-block mandibular advancement devices, hypoglossal nerve stimulation, myofunctional therapy, maxillo-mandibular osteotomy, carbonic anhydrase inhibitors and positional therapy. These recommendations can be used to benchmark quality of care for people with OSA across Europe and to improve outcomes.