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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The accuracy of haemoglobin A1c as a screening and diagnostic test for gestational diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy studies.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with adverse pregnancy complications. Accurate screening and diagnosis of gestational diabetes are critical to treatment, and in a pandemic scenario like coronavirus disease 2019 needing a simple test that minimises prolonged hospital stay. We undertook a meta-analysis on the screening and diagnostic accuracy of the haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) test in women with and without risk factors for gestational diabetes. RECENT FINDINGS: Unlike the oral glucose tolerance test, the HbA1c test is simple, quick and more acceptable. There is a growing body of evidence on the accuracy of HbA1c as a screening and diagnostic test for GDM. We searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library and selected relevant studies. Accuracy data for different thresholds within the final 23 included studies (16 921 women) were pooled using a multiple thresholds model. Summary accuracy indices were estimated by selecting an optimal threshold that optimises either sensitivity or specificity according to different scenarios. SUMMARY: HbA1c is more useful as a specific test at a cut-off of 5.7% (39 mmol/mol) with a false positive rate of 10%, but should be supplemented by a more sensitive test to detect women with GDM.

Treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastoma in the elderly: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A glioblastoma is a fatal type of brain tumour for which the standard of care is maximum surgical resection followed by chemoradiotherapy, when possible. Age is an important consideration in this disease, as older age is associated with shorter survival and a higher risk of treatment-related toxicity. OBJECTIVES: To determine the most effective and best-tolerated approaches for the treatment of elderly people with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. To summarise current evidence for the incremental resource use, utilities, costs and cost-effectiveness associated with these approaches. SEARCH METHODS: We searched electronic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase to 3 April 2019, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED) up to database closure. We handsearched clinical trial registries and selected neuro-oncology society conference proceedings from the past five years. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials (RCTs) of treatments for glioblastoma in elderly people. We defined 'elderly' as 70+ years but included studies defining 'elderly' as over 65+ years if so reported. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods for study selection and data extraction. Where sufficient data were available, treatment options were compared in a network meta-analysis (NMA) using Stata software (version 15.1). For outcomes with insufficient data for NMA, pairwise meta-analysis were conducted in RevMan. The GRADE approach was used to grade the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 RCTs involving approximately 1818 participants. Six were conducted exclusively among elderly people (either defined as 65 years or older or 70 years or older) with newly diagnosed glioblastoma, the other six reported data for an elderly subgroup among a broader age range of participants. Most participants were capable of self-care. Study quality was commonly undermined by lack of outcome assessor blinding and attrition. NMA was only possible for overall survival; other analyses were pair-wise meta-analyses or narrative syntheses. Seven trials contributed to the NMA for overall survival, with interventions including supportive care only (one trial arm); hypofractionated radiotherapy (RT40; four trial arms); standard radiotherapy (RT60; five trial arms); temozolomide (TMZ; three trial arms); chemoradiotherapy (CRT; three trial arms); bevacizumab with chemoradiotherapy (BEV_CRT; one trial arm); and bevacizumab with radiotherapy (BEV_RT). Compared with supportive care only, NMA evidence suggested that all treatments apart from BEV_RT prolonged survival to some extent. Overall survival High-certainty evidence shows that CRT prolongs overall survival (OS) compared with RT40 (hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.80) and low-certainty evidence suggests that CRT may prolong overall survival compared with TMZ (TMZ versus CRT: HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.98). Low-certainty evidence also suggests that adding BEV to CRT may make little or no difference (BEV_CRT versus CRT: HR 0.83, 95% CrI 0.48 to 1.44). We could not compare the survival effects of CRT with different radiotherapy fractionation schedules (60 Gy/30 fractions and 40 Gy/15 fractions) due to a lack of data. When treatments were ranked according to their effects on OS, CRT ranked higher than TMZ, RT and supportive care only, with the latter ranked last. BEV plus RT was the only treatment for which there was no clear benefit in OS over supportive care only.   One trial comparing tumour treating fields (TTF) plus adjuvant chemotherapy (TTF_AC) with adjuvant chemotherapy alone could not be included in the NMA as participants were randomised after receiving concomitant chemoradiotherapy, not before. Findings from the trial suggest that the intervention probably improves overall survival in this selected patient population. We were unable to perform NMA for other outcomes due to insufficient data. Pairwise analyses were conducted for the following. Quality of life Moderate-certainty narrative evidence suggests that overall, there may be little difference in QoL between TMZ and RT, except for discomfort from communication deficits, which are probably more common with RT (1 study, 306 participants, P = 0.002). Data on QoL for other comparisons were sparse, partly due to high dropout rates, and the certainty of the evidence tended to be low or very low. Progression-free survival High-certainty evidence shows that CRT increases time to disease progression compared with RT40 (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.61); moderate-certainty evidence suggests that RT60 probably increases time to disease progression compared with supportive care only (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.46), and that BEV_RT probably increases time to disease progression compared with RT40 alone (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.78). Evidence for other treatment comparisons was of low- or very low-certainty. Severe adverse events Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that TMZ probably increases the risk of grade 3+ thromboembolic events compared with RT60 (risk ratio (RR) 2.74, 95% CI 1.26 to 5.94; participants = 373; studies = 1) and also the risk of grade 3+ neutropenia, lymphopenia, and thrombocytopenia. Moderate-certainty evidence also suggests that CRT probably increases the risk of grade 3+ neutropenia, leucopenia and thrombocytopenia compared with hypofractionated RT alone. Adding BEV to CRT probably increases the risk of thromboembolism (RR 16.63, 95% CI 1.00 to 275.42; moderate-certainty evidence). Economic evidence There is a paucity of economic evidence regarding the management of newly diagnosed glioblastoma in the elderly. Only one economic evaluation on two short course radiotherapy regimen (25 Gy versus 40 Gy) was identified and its findings were considered unreliable. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For elderly people with glioblastoma who are self-caring, evidence suggests that CRT prolongs survival compared with RT and may prolong overall survival compared with TMZ alone. For those undergoing RT or TMZ therapy, there is probably little difference in QoL overall. Systemic anti-cancer treatments TMZ and BEV carry a higher risk of severe haematological and thromboembolic events and CRT is probably associated with a higher risk of these events. Current evidence provides little justification for using BEV in elderly patients outside a clinical trial setting. Whilst the novel TTF device appears promising, evidence on QoL and tolerability is needed in an elderly population. QoL and economic assessments of CRT versus TMZ and RT are needed. More high-quality economic evaluations are needed, in which a broader scope of costs (both direct and indirect) and outcomes should be included.

Variations in long-term outcome reporting among offspring followed up after lifestyle interventions in pregnancy: a systematic review.

Background Mothers and their offspring may benefit from lifestyle interventions during pregnancy. We systematically reviewed the literature to map and evaluate the quality of long-term offspring outcomes in follow-up cohorts of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Cochrane Central (until March 2019) for all RCTs evaluating any lifestyle (diet or exercise) intervention during pregnancy and their follow-up cohorts. Two reviews evaluated the extracted outcomes using two standardised assessment tools, one for quality of reporting (score range 0-6) and another for the variation in outcome selection. We extracted data in duplicate and reported using natural frequencies, medians, ranges, means and standard deviation (SD). Results We captured 30 long-term offspring outcomes reported in six articles (four studies). Offspring anthropometric measurements were the most commonly reported outcomes. There was a large variation in the measurement tools used. The mean overall quality score for outcome reporting was 3.33 (SD 1.24), with poor reporting of secondary outcomes and limited justification for the choice of the reported outcomes. Most studies showed selective reporting for both their primary and secondary outcomes. Conclusion The quality of reporting for long-term offspring outcomes following lifestyle interventions in pregnancy is varied with evidence of selective outcome reporting. Developing a core outcome set will help to reduce the variations in outcome reporting to optimise future research.

Gestational weight gain outside the Institute of Medicine recommendations and adverse pregnancy outcomes: analysis using individual participant data from randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: High Body Mass Index (BMI) and gestational weight gain (GWG) affect an increasing number of pregnancies. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has issued recommendations on the optimal GWG for women according to their pre-pregnancy BMI (healthy, overweight or obese). It has been shown that pregnant women rarely met the recommendations; however, it is unclear by how much. Previous studies also adjusted the analyses for various women's characteristics making their comparison challenging. METHODS: We analysed individual participant data (IPD) of healthy women with a singleton pregnancy and a BMI of 18.5 kg/m2 or more from the control arms of 36 randomised trials (16 countries). Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to describe the association between GWG outside (above or below) the IOM recommendations (2009) and risks of caesarean section, preterm birth, and large or small for gestational age (LGA or SGA) infants. The association was examined overall, within the BMI categories and by quartile of GWG departure from the IOM recommendations. We obtained aOR using mixed-effects logistic regression, accounting for the within-study clustering and a priori identified characteristics. RESULTS: Out of 4429 women (from 33 trials) meeting the inclusion criteria, two thirds gained weight outside the IOM recommendations (1646 above; 1291 below). The median GWG outside the IOM recommendations was 3.1 kg above and 2.7 kg below. In comparison to GWG within the IOM recommendations, GWG above was associated with increased odds of caesarean section (aOR 1.50; 95%CI 1.25, 1.80), LGA (2.00; 1.58, 2.54), and reduced odds of SGA (0.66; 0.50, 0.87); no significant effect on preterm birth was detected. The relationship between GWG below the IOM recommendation and caesarean section or LGA was inconclusive; however, the odds of preterm birth (1.94; 1.31, 2.28) and SGA (1.52; 1.18, 1.96) were increased. CONCLUSIONS: Consistently with previous findings, adherence to the IOM recommendations seem to help achieve better pregnancy outcomes. Nevertheless, even in the context of clinical trials, women find it difficult to adhere to them. Further research should focus on identifying ways of achieving a healthier GWG as defined by the IOM recommendations.

Accuracy of fetal fibronectin for assessing preterm birth risk in asymptomatic pregnant women: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Fetal fibronectin (fFN) is a validated test for assessing risk of preterm birth for women presenting with symptoms. Our aim was to evaluate the accuracy of fFN to detect the risk of preterm birth in asymptomatic women. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Searches were conducted to identify studies where fFN was performed in asymptomatic women beyond 22 weeks' gestation. EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINHAL, AMED and BNI were searched between 2005 and 2017. Studies before 2005 were identified from a published systematic review. Women were grouped as singleton pregnancies, with and without risk factors for preterm birth, and multiple pregnancy. Quality assessment was performed using QUADAS-2. When possible, data were pooled using a hierarchical, bivariate random effects model. RESULTS: Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria: six studies of singleton pregnancies in women without risk factors (1236 women), four in women with risk factors for preterm birth (2628 women) and five studies were of multiple pregnancy (1427 women). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of fFN in "no risk factors singletons" were 0.48 (95% CI 0.20-0.77), and 0.96 (95% CI 0.86-0.99), respectively. The likelihood ratio of a positive test result was 12 (95% CI 4.70-30.68). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of fFN in "risk factors singletons" were 0.34 (95% CI 0.24-0.43), and 0.91 (95% CI 0.88-0.93). The accuracy of fFN in multiple pregnancies was inconclusive. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest in asymptomatic singleton pregnancies without risk factors, a positive fFN result indicates a large shift from pre- to post-test probability, possibly identifying women at increased risk of preterm birth.

Accuracy of tests used to detect infection with Chlamydia trachomatis in asymptomatic pregnant women: a systematic review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Infection with Chlamydia trachomatis in pregnancy is linked to increased risk of miscarriage, stillbirth, and preterm birth. Currently, PCR or DNA-based tests are the gold standard when detecting the infection; however, they are costly and require access to specialist equipment. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the accuracy of available tests to detect infection in an asymptomatic pregnant population. RECENT FINDINGS: There was evidence of the superior accuracy of nucleic acid amplification tests to cell culture in nonpregnant asymptomatic women; however, there are multiple commercial nucleic acid amplification tests with varying sensitivities and specificities. There is a gap in current literature on accuracy studies in an asymptomatic pregnant population, particularly within routine antenatal settings. SUMMARY: There is a need for a point-of-care test for Chlamydia in pregnancy. Future test accuracy studies for this population should aim to use a universally established reference standard. Further research should provide relevant evidence to guide practice.

Does mindfulness meditation improve chronic pain? A systematic review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Psychological factors are associated with chronic pain. Mindfulness meditation may ameliorate symptoms. The objective was to evaluate the effects of mindfulness meditation in chronic pain. RECENT FINDINGS: A systematic search of four databases identified 534 citations; 13 Randomised controlled trials satisfied the inclusion criteria. Mindfulness meditation significantly reduced depression [Standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.28; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.53, -0.03; P = 0.03; I = 0%]. For affective pain (SMD -0.13; 95% CI -0.42, 0.16; I = 0%), sensory pain (SMD -0.02; 95% CI -0.31, 0.27; I = 0%) and anxiety (SMD -0.16; 95% CI -0.47, 0.15; I = 0%) there was a trend towards benefit with intervention. Quality of life items on mental health (SMD 0.65; 95% CI -0.27, 1.58; I = 69%), physical health (SMD 0.08; 95% CI -0.40, 0.56; I = 32%) and overall score (SMD 0.86, 95% CI -0.06, 1.78; I = 88%) improved with mindfulness meditation. SUMMARY: Mindfulness meditation has most prominent effect on psychological aspects on living with chronic pain, improving associated depression and quality of life.

Variations in reporting of outcomes in randomized trials on diet and physical activity in pregnancy: A systematic review.

AIM: Trials on diet and physical activity in pregnancy report on various outcomes. We aimed to assess the variations in outcomes reported and their quality in trials on lifestyle interventions in pregnancy. METHODS: We searched major databases without language restrictions for randomized controlled trials on diet and physical activity-based interventions in pregnancy up to March 2015. Two independent reviewers undertook study selection and data extraction. We estimated the percentage of papers reporting 'critically important' and 'important' outcomes. We defined the quality of reporting as a proportion using a six-item questionnaire. Regression analysis was used to identify factors affecting this quality. RESULTS: Sixty-six randomized controlled trials were published in 78 papers (66 main, 12 secondary). Gestational diabetes (57.6%, 38/66), preterm birth (48.5%, 32/66) and cesarian section (60.6%, 40/66), were the commonly reported 'critically important' outcomes. Gestational weight gain (84.5%, 56/66) and birth weight (87.9%, 58/66) were reported in most papers, although not considered critically important. The median quality of reporting was 0.60 (interquartile range 0.25, 0.83) for a maximum score of one. Study and journal characteristics did not affect quality. CONCLUSION: Many studies on lifestyle interventions in pregnancy do not report critically important outcomes, highlighting the need for core outcome set development.

Grading evidence from test accuracy studies: what makes it challenging compared with the grading of effectiveness studies?

Guideline panels need to process a sizeable amount of information to issue a decision on whether to recommend a health technology or not. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) is being frequently applied in guideline development to facilitate this task, typically for the synthesis of effectiveness research. Questions regarding the accuracy of medical tests are ubiquitous, and they temporally precede questions about therapy. However, literature summarising the experience of applying GRADE approach to accuracy evaluations is not as rich as one for effectiveness evidence. Type of study design (cross-sectional), two-dimensional nature of the performance measures (sensitivity and specificity), propensity towards a higher level of between-study heterogeneity, poor reporting of quality features and uncertainty about how best to assess for publication bias among other features make this task challenging. This article presents solutions adopted to addresses above challenges for judicious estimation of the strength of test accuracy evidence used to inform evidence syntheses for guideline development.

Meta-analysis using individual participant data from randomised trials: opportunities and limitations created by access to raw data.

Meta-analysis based on individual participant data (IPD), often described as the 'gold standard' for effectiveness evidence synthesis, is increasingly being deployed despite being more resource intensive than collating study-level results. Its professed virtues include the ability to incorporate unreported data and to standardise variables and their definitions across trials. In reality, the unreported data, although present in shared datasets, might still not be usable in the analysis. The characteristics of trial participants and their outcomes may be too diversely captured for harmonisation and too time and resource consuming to standardise. Embarking on an IPD meta-analysis can lead to unanticipated challenges which ought to be handled with pragmatism. The aim of this article is to discuss the opportunities created by access to IPD and the practical limitations placed on such meta-analyses, using an international IPD meta-analysis of trials on the effect of lifestyle interventions in pregnancy as an example. Despite the increasing uptake of IPD meta-analysis, they encounter old problems shared by other research methods. When embarking on IPD meta-analysis, it is essential to evaluate the trade-offs between the ambitions, and what is achievable due to constraints imposed by the condition of collected IPD. Furthermore, incorporation of aggregate data from trials where IPD was not available should be a mandatory sensitivity analysis that makes the evidence synthesis up-to-date.

Use of labour induction and risk of cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Induction of labour is common, and cesarean delivery is regarded as its major complication. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate whether the risk of cesarean delivery is higher or lower following labour induction compared with expectant management. METHODS: We searched 6 electronic databases for relevant articles published through April 2012 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which labour induction was compared with placebo or expectant management among women with a viable singleton pregnancy. We assessed risk of bias and obtained data on rates of cesarean delivery. We used regression analysis techniques to explore the effect of patient characteristics, induction methods and study quality on risk of cesarean delivery. RESULTS: We identified 157 eligible RCTs (n = 31,085). Overall, the risk of cesarean delivery was 12% lower with labour induction than with expectant management (pooled relative risk [RR] 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-0.93; I(2) = 0%). The effect was significant in term and post-term gestations but not in preterm gestations. Meta-regression analysis showed that initial cervical score, indication for induction and method of induction did not alter the main result. There was a reduced risk of fetal death (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.25-0.99; I(2) = 0%) and admission to a neonatal intensive care unit (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79-0.94), and no impact on maternal death (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.10-9.57; I(2) = 0%) with labour induction. INTERPRETATION: The risk of cesarean delivery was lower among women whose labour was induced than among those managed expectantly in term and post-term gestations. There were benefits for the fetus and no increased risk of maternal death.

Effect of diet- and lifestyle-based metabolic risk-modifying interventions on preeclampsia: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of dietary and lifestyle interventions with the potential to modify metabolic risk factors on the risk of preeclampsia. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane from inception until February 2013. Randomized trials in pregnant women evaluating the effect of dietary and lifestyle interventions with the potential to modify metabolic risks such as obesity, hyperlipidemia, hyperglycemia and hypertension on the risk of preeclampsia were included. STUDY SELECTION: Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data and assessed quality. Results were summarized as pooled relative risks (RR) for dichotomous data. RESULTS: Eighteen studies (8712 women) met our search criteria for inclusion. Six studies evaluated diet (2695 women), six studied mixed interventions with diet, physical activity and lifestyle (1438 women) and six assessed essential fatty acid supplementation (4579 women). The interventions overall reduced the risk of preeclampsia (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.94; p = 0.006 I(2) = 0%) compared with the control group. Dietary interventions reduced the risk of preeclampsia by 33% (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.53-0.85; p = 0.001; I(2) = 0%). There was no reduction in the risk of preeclampsia with mixed interventions (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.66-1.32, p = 0.68, I(2) = 0%) or fatty acid supplementation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71-1.18; p = 0.49, I(2) = 15%). Meta-regression showed a borderline impact of gestational diabetes status (p = 0.05) on the observed effect. CONCLUSION: Dietary and lifestyle interventions have the potential to reduce the risk of preeclampsia. The effect of additional therapeutic interventions in women with gestational diabetes mellitus on preeclampsia is not known.