RESUMEN
Lorlatinib has been FDA-approved as a systemic therapy for ALK/ROS1-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. However, it has been associated with an increased frequency of neurocognitive adverse events (NAEs). Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the NAEs related to lorlatinib therapy in NSCLC patients. PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and prominent conference proceedings were searched for eligible studies of lorlatinib in NSCLC patients. NAEs included cognitive, mood, speech, and psychotic effects. A total of 1147 patients from 12 studies were included; 62% had brain metastases. A pooled analysis of NAEs showed frequencies of cognitive effects of 14.57% (95% CI, 8.37 to 24.14, I2 = 84%), mood effects of 11.17% (95% CI, 5.93 to 20.07, I2 = 84%), speech effects of 7.24% (95% CI, 3.39 to 15.20, I2 = 72%), and psychotic effects of 4.97% (95% CI, 3.27 to 7.49, I2 = 21%). Clinical trials reported a significantly higher frequency of mood effects than was indicated by real-world data. These results highlight the importance of educating patients and healthcare professionals about lorlatinib-related NAEs for early detection and management to improve NSCLC patients' quality of life.
RESUMEN
Furosemide is the most used diuretic for volume overload symptoms in patients with heart failure (HF). Recent data suggested that torsemide may be superior to furosemide in this setting. However, whether this translates into better clinical outcomes in this population remains unclear. To assess whether torsemide is superior to furosemide in the setting of HF. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing the efficacy of torsemide versus furosemide in patients with HF. PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for eligible trials. Outcomes of interest were all-cause hospitalizations, hospitalizations for HF (HHF), hospitalizations for all cardiovascular causes, all-cause mortality, and NYHA class improvement. Echocardiographic parameters were also assessed. We applied a random-effects model to calculate risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and a 0.05 level of significance. 12 RCTs were included, comprising 4,115 patients. Torsemide significantly reduced HHF (RR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.83; p=0.002; I2=0%), hospitalization for cardiovascular causes (RR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.88; p=0.0009; I2=0%), and improved LVEF (MD 4.51%; 95% CI, 2.94 to 6.07; p<0.0001; I2=0%) compared with furosemide. There was no significant difference in all-cause hospitalizations (RR 0.93; 95% CI, 0.86-1.00; p=0.04; I2=0%), all-cause mortality (RR 0.98; 95% CI, 0.87-1.10; p=0.73; I2=0%), NYHA class improvement (RR 1.25; 95% CI, 0.92-1.68; p=0.15; I2=0%), or NYHA class change (MD -0.04; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.16; p=0.70; I2=15%) between groups. Torsemide significantly reduced hospitalizations for HF and cardiovascular causes, also improving LVEF.
A furosemida é o diurético mais utilizado para o tratamento de sintomas de sobrecarga de volume em pacientes com insuficiência cardíaca. Dados recentes sugerem que a torsemida pode ser superior à furosemida neste contexto. No entanto, ainda não é claro se isso se traduz em melhores resultados clínicos nesta população. Avaliar se a torsemida é superior à furosemida no contexto da insuficiência cardíaca. Realizamos uma revisão sistemática e metanálise de estudos clínicos randomizados (ECRs) comparando a eficácia da torsemida em comparação com a furosemida em pacientes com insuficiência cardíaca. PubMed, Embase e Web of Science foram as bases de dados pesquisadas em busca de estudos elegíveis. Os desfechos de interesse foram internações por todas as causas, internações por insuficiência cardíaca (IIC), internações por todas as causas cardiovasculares, mortalidade por todas as causas, e melhoria de classe da NYHA. Parâmetros ecocardiográficos também foram avaliados. Foi aplicado um modelo de efeitos aleatórios para calcular as razões de risco (RR) e as diferenças médias (DM) com intervalos de confiança (IC) de 95% e nível de significância de 0,05. Foram incluídos 12 ECRs, envolvendo 4.115 pacientes. A torsemida reduziu significativamente a IIC (RR de 0,60; IC de 95%, 0,43-0,83; p=0,002; I2=0%), internação por causas cardiovasculares (RR de 0,72; IC de 95%, 0,60-0,88; p=0,0009; I2=0%), e melhora da fração de ejeção do ventrículo esquerdo (FEVE) (DM de 4,51%; IC de 95%, 2,94 a 6,07; p<0,0001; I2=0%) em comparação com a furosemida. Não houve diferença significativa no número de internações por todas as causas (RR de 0,93; IC de 95%, 0,86-1,00; p=0,04; I2=0%), mortalidade por todas as causas (RR de 0,98; IC de 95%, 0,87-1,10; p=0,73; I2=0%), melhora da classe NYHA (RR de 1,25; IC de 95%, 0,92-1,68; p=0,15; I2=0%), ou mudança de classe NYHA (DM de -0,04; IC de 95%, -0,24 a 0,16; p=0,70; I2=15%) entre os grupos. A torsemida reduziu significativamente as internações por insuficiência cardíaca e causas cardiovasculares, melhorando também a FEVE.
Asunto(s)
Furosemida , Insuficiencia Cardíaca , Hospitalización , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Torasemida , Humanos , Furosemida/uso terapéutico , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/tratamiento farmacológico , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/mortalidad , Torasemida/uso terapéutico , Hospitalización/estadística & datos numéricos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Diuréticos/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors are approved for advanced breast cancer combined with endocrine therapy (ET). The efficacy of CDK4/6 inhibitors plus ET in hormone estrogen-positive, human epidermal growth factor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) early-stage breast cancer (esBC) is still to be confirmed. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy of CDK4/6i plus ET in esBC. Main outcomes included invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), distant relapse-free survival (DRFS), and overall survival (OS). We included only phase III randomized controlled trials. We used RStudio version 4.2.3, and we considered p < 0.05 to be statistically significant. RESULTS: Four studies were selected, including 14,168 patients, of which 7089 were treated with CDK4/6i plus ET and 7079 received ET monotherapy. Regarding patient characteristics, 6828 (48.2%) were premenopausal. Compared with ET alone, iDFS rates (HR 0.81; 95% CI: 0.67, 0.98; p = 0.034) were significantly in favor of CDK4/6 inhibitors plus ET. However, there were no significant differences in DRFS (HR 0.79; 95% CI: 0.58, 1.07; p = 0.132) nor OS (HR 0.96; 95% CI: 0.69, 1.35; p = 0.829). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that the addition of CDK4/6 inhibitors is associated with a significant benefit for HR+/HER2- esBC patients in iDFS. More studies and longer follow-up are needed to assess overall survival benefits.
RESUMEN
Resumo A furosemida é o diurético mais utilizado para o tratamento de sintomas de sobrecarga de volume em pacientes com insuficiência cardíaca. Dados recentes sugerem que a torsemida pode ser superior à furosemida neste contexto. No entanto, ainda não é claro se isso se traduz em melhores resultados clínicos nesta população. Avaliar se a torsemida é superior à furosemida no contexto da insuficiência cardíaca. Realizamos uma revisão sistemática e metanálise de estudos clínicos randomizados (ECRs) comparando a eficácia da torsemida em comparação com a furosemida em pacientes com insuficiência cardíaca. PubMed, Embase e Web of Science foram as bases de dados pesquisadas em busca de estudos elegíveis. Os desfechos de interesse foram internações por todas as causas, internações por insuficiência cardíaca (IIC), internações por todas as causas cardiovasculares, mortalidade por todas as causas, e melhoria de classe da NYHA. Parâmetros ecocardiográficos também foram avaliados. Foi aplicado um modelo de efeitos aleatórios para calcular as razões de risco (RR) e as diferenças médias (DM) com intervalos de confiança (IC) de 95% e nível de significância de 0,05. Foram incluídos 12 ECRs, envolvendo 4.115 pacientes. A torsemida reduziu significativamente a IIC (RR de 0,60; IC de 95%, 0,43-0,83; p=0,002; I2=0%), internação por causas cardiovasculares (RR de 0,72; IC de 95%, 0,60-0,88; p=0,0009; I2=0%), e melhora da fração de ejeção do ventrículo esquerdo (FEVE) (DM de 4,51%; IC de 95%, 2,94 a 6,07; p<0,0001; I2=0%) em comparação com a furosemida. Não houve diferença significativa no número de internações por todas as causas (RR de 0,93; IC de 95%, 0,86-1,00; p=0,04; I2=0%), mortalidade por todas as causas (RR de 0,98; IC de 95%, 0,87-1,10; p=0,73; I2=0%), melhora da classe NYHA (RR de 1,25; IC de 95%, 0,92-1,68; p=0,15; I2=0%), ou mudança de classe NYHA (DM de -0,04; IC de 95%, -0,24 a 0,16; p=0,70; I2=15%) entre os grupos. A torsemida reduziu significativamente as internações por insuficiência cardíaca e causas cardiovasculares, melhorando também a FEVE.
Abstract Furosemide is the most used diuretic for volume overload symptoms in patients with heart failure (HF). Recent data suggested that torsemide may be superior to furosemide in this setting. However, whether this translates into better clinical outcomes in this population remains unclear. To assess whether torsemide is superior to furosemide in the setting of HF. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing the efficacy of torsemide versus furosemide in patients with HF. PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for eligible trials. Outcomes of interest were all-cause hospitalizations, hospitalizations for HF (HHF), hospitalizations for all cardiovascular causes, all-cause mortality, and NYHA class improvement. Echocardiographic parameters were also assessed. We applied a random-effects model to calculate risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and a 0.05 level of significance. 12 RCTs were included, comprising 4,115 patients. Torsemide significantly reduced HHF (RR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.83; p=0.002; I2=0%), hospitalization for cardiovascular causes (RR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.88; p=0.0009; I2=0%), and improved LVEF (MD 4.51%; 95% CI, 2.94 to 6.07; p<0.0001; I2=0%) compared with furosemide. There was no significant difference in all-cause hospitalizations (RR 0.93; 95% CI, 0.86-1.00; p=0.04; I2=0%), all-cause mortality (RR 0.98; 95% CI, 0.87-1.10; p=0.73; I2=0%), NYHA class improvement (RR 1.25; 95% CI, 0.92-1.68; p=0.15; I2=0%), or NYHA class change (MD -0.04; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.16; p=0.70; I2=15%) between groups. Torsemide significantly reduced hospitalizations for HF and cardiovascular causes, also improving LVEF.
RESUMEN
Papillary subtypes of renal-cell carcinoma (pRCC) represent 10-15% of the cases and commonly have MET alterations. This systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis evaluated MET inhibitor therapy (METi) efficacy and safety in adults with confirmed advanced pRCC. The search strategy included PubMed, Web-of-science, Cochrane, and Scopus. We used the DerSimonian/Laird random effect model for all analyses; p-value < 5% was considered significant, and heterogeneity was assessed with I2. Three clinical trials and six cohort studies were included with 504 patients; 31% were MET-driven. Our pooled analysis demonstrated an objective response rate (ORR) in MET-driven, MET-independent, and overall patients of: 36% (95%CI: 10-62), 0% (95%CI: 0-3), and 21% (95%CI: 1-41), respectively. One-year disease control and progression-free survival rates were, respectively, 70% (95%CI: 52-88) and 15% (95%CI: 10-20). Twelve- and twenty-four-month survival rates were, respectively, 43% (95%CI: 23-64) and 10% (95%CI: 0-30). The prevalence of adverse events of any grade and grades 3-5 were 96% (95%CI: 91-100) and 44% (95%CI: 37-50), respectively. We suggest METi has anti-tumor activity and is tolerable in patients with advanced pRCC.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma de Células Renales , Neoplasias Renales , Adulto , Humanos , Carcinoma de Células Renales/tratamiento farmacológico , Carcinoma de Células Renales/patología , Estudios de Cohortes , Terapia Enzimática , Neoplasias Renales/patología , Inhibidores de Proteínas Quinasas/efectos adversosRESUMEN
This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rechallenging advanced melanoma patients with BRAFi/MEKi. Seven studies, accounting for 400 patients, were included. Most patients received immunotherapy before the rechallenge, and 79% underwent rechallenge with the combination of BRAFi/MEKi. We found a median progression-free survival of 5 months and overall survival of 9.8 months. The one-year survival rate was 42.63%. Regarding response, ORR was 34% and DCR 65%. There were no new or unexpected safety concerns. Rechallenge with BRAFi/MEKi can improve outcomes in advanced melanoma patients with refractory disease. These findings have significant implications for clinical practice, particularly in the setting of progressive disease in later lines and limited treatment options.