Efficacy of migraine prophylaxis treatments for treatment-naïve patients and those with prior treatment failure: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: Migraine headache is a significant health problem affecting patients' psychological well-being and quality of life. Several network meta-analyses (NMAs) have compared the efficacy of migraine prophylaxis medications. However, some have focused exclusively on oral medications, while others were limited to injectable medications. Moreover, none of these NMAs conducted a stratified analysis between treatment-naïve patients and those with prior treatment failure. Therefore, this systematic review and NMA will compare the efficacy among all treatments for migraine prophylaxis, stratified by the treatment status of patients (ie, treatment-naïve and previous treatment failure). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Randomised-controlled trials that included patients with chronic or episodic migraine, assessed the efficacy of oral or injectable treatments for migraine prophylaxis and measured the outcomes as monthly migraine day, monthly headache day, migraine-related disability, health-related quality of life or adverse drug events will be eligible for inclusion in this review. Relevant studies will be searched from Medline, Scopus, the US National Institutes of Health Register, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO-ICTRP) databases since inception through 15 August 2023. Risk of bias assessment will be performed using a revised tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomised trials. Two-stage NMA will be applied to compare relative treatment effects among all treatments of migraine prophylaxis. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve will be applied to estimate and rank the probability to be the best treatment. Consistency assumption will be assessed using a design-by-treatment interaction model. Publication bias will be assessed by comparison-adjusted funnel plot. All analyses will be stratified according to patients' status (ie, treatment-naïve and prior treatment failure). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is a systematic review protocol collecting data from published literature and does not require approval from an institutional review board. Results from this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020171843.

Efficacy of Treatment for Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

PURPOSE: This umbrella review focused on evaluating the efficacy and adverse events of the metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer patients receiving any treatment regimens, including ADT alone or combination treatments. METHODS: This study conducted an umbrella review following the PRISMA 2020 checklist, aiming to summarize the available studies to evaluate the efficacy of medical treatments for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. A literature search was performed to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) that included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to September 2023. This study summarized their findings, evaluated overlapping data (i.e., the same RCTs were included in >one SRMA), tested for excessive significance (i.e., observed number of statistically significant studies > expected number by chance) and assessed the quality of the studies. RESULTS: A total of 4191 studies were identified, but only 27 were included. Among those 27 studies, 12 were network meta-analyses and 15 were direct meta-analyses. Most studies showed no statistically significant difference in overall mortality among GnRH agonists, antagonists and bilateral orchiectomy. Combination treatment is more beneficial than ADT alone in both OS and PFS outcomes with more adverse events. Nevertheless, there is no OS advantage of any combination regimen over the others. CONCLUSION: Combination treatments demonstrated clear benefits in OS and PFS over ADT alone with more AEs. Further studies are needed to compare among combination treatments.