Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy for cancer cachexia: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Chen, Hao; Ishihara, Masashi; Kazahari, Hiroki; Ochiai, Ryusuke; Tanzawa, Shigeru; Honda, Takeshi; Ichikawa, Yasuko; Horita, Nobuyuki; Nagai, Hisashi; Watanabe, Kiyotaka; Seki, Nobuhiko.
Afiliación
  • Chen H; Department of Oncology, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
  • Ishihara M; Department of Pulmonology, Yokohama City University Hospital, Yokohama, Japan.
  • Kazahari H; Department of Oncology, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
  • Ochiai R; Department of Oncology, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
  • Tanzawa S; Department of Oncology, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
  • Honda T; Department of Oncology, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
  • Ichikawa Y; Department of Oncology, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
  • Horita N; Department of Oncology, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
  • Nagai H; Department of Chemotherapy, Yokohama City University Hospital, Yokohama, Japan.
  • Watanabe K; Graduate School of Human and Environmental Studies, Tokai University, Tokyo, Japan.
  • Seki N; Department of Oncology, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Cancer Med ; 13(17): e70166, 2024 Sep.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39225556
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Cancer cachexia affects more than half of all cancer patients, reducing survival rates. Evidence-based approaches are urgently needed to optimize treatment.

METHODS:

A systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted to assess the effectiveness and safety of different pharmacotherapies for cancer cachexia. Three databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were searched for the period from January 1, 2000, to March 20, 2024. The netmeta package in R software was used to calculate the pooled effect, employing a random effects model.

RESULTS:

Seven placebo-controlled randomized trials involving 1421 patients were analyzed. Pairwise analysis showed that body weight increases were 4.6 kg (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-8.37 kg) for olanzapine, 3.82 kg (95% CI 0.73-6.91 kg) for espindolol (20 mg), 2.36 kg (95% CI 1.84-2.89 kg) for anamorelin (100 mg), and 1.31 kg (95% CI 0.42-2.19 kg) for anamorelin (50 mg). In terms of safety profiles, olanzapine demonstrated the lowest odds ratio when compared to placebo, at 0.26 (95% CI 0.07-0.94), followed by anamorelin (50 mg) at 0.86 (95% CI 0.30-2.48), and anamorelin (100 mg) at 0.89 (95% CI 0.42-1.88). However, network meta-analysis could not confirm the superiority of olanzapine over anamorelin in terms of efficacy and safety.

CONCLUSION:

Both olanzapine and anamorelin are useful in improving body weight in patients with cancer cachexia. Personalization may be helpful for different patients.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Caquexia / Olanzapina / Neoplasias Idioma: En Revista: Cancer Med Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Caquexia / Olanzapina / Neoplasias Idioma: En Revista: Cancer Med Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article