Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 39
Filtrar
1.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 12: CD013020, 2020 Dec 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33270906

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Different bone-modifying agents like bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL)-inhibitors are used as supportive treatment in men with prostate cancer and bone metastases to prevent skeletal-related events (SREs). SREs such as pathologic fractures, spinal cord compression, surgery and radiotherapy to the bone, and hypercalcemia lead to morbidity, a poor performance status, and impaired quality of life. Efficacy and acceptability of the bone-targeted therapy is therefore of high relevance. Until now recommendations in guidelines on which bone-modifying agents should be used are rare and inconsistent. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of bisphosphonates and RANKL-inhibitors as supportive treatment for prostate cancer patients with bone metastases and to generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to their safety and efficacy using network meta-analysis. SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies by electronically searching the bibliographic databases Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase until 23 March 2020. We searched the Cochrane Library and various trial registries and screened abstracts of conference proceedings and reference lists of identified trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing different bisphosphonates and RANKL-inihibitors with each other or against no further treatment or placebo for men with prostate cancer and bone metastases. We included men with castration-restrictive and castration-sensitive prostate cancer and conducted subgroup analyses according to this criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of trials. We defined proportion of participants with pain response and the adverse events renal impairment and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) as the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes were SREs in total and each separately (see above), mortality, quality of life, and further adverse events such as grade 3 to 4 adverse events, hypocalcemia, fatigue, diarrhea, and nausea. We conducted network meta-analysis and generated treatment rankings for all outcomes, except quality of life due to insufficient reporting on this outcome. We compiled ranking plots to compare single outcomes of efficacy against outcomes of acceptability of the bone-modifying agents. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for the main outcomes using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-five trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Twenty-one trials could be considered in the quantitative analysis, of which six bisphosphonates (zoledronic acid, risedronate, pamidronate, alendronate, etidronate, or clodronate) were compared with each other, the RANKL-inhibitor denosumab, or no treatment/placebo. By conducting network meta-analysis we were able to compare all of these reported agents directly and/or indirectly within the network for each outcome. In the abstract only the comparisons of zoledronic acid and denosumab against the main comparator (no treatment/placebo) are described for outcomes that were predefined as most relevant and that also appear in the 'Summary of findings' table. Other results, as well as results of subgroup analyses regarding castration status of participants, are displayed in the Results section of the full text. Treatment with zoledronic acid probably neither reduces nor increases the proportion of participants with pain response when compared to no treatment/placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 2.32; per 1000 participants 121 more (19 less to 349 more); moderate-certainty evidence; network based on 4 trials including 1013 participants). For this outcome none of the trials reported results for the comparison with denosumab. The adverse event renal impairment probably occurs more often when treated with zoledronic acid compared to treatment/placebo (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.45; per 1000 participants 78 more (10 more to 180 more); moderate-certainty evidence; network based on 6 trials including 1769 participants). Results for denosumab could not be included for this outcome, since zero events cannot be considered in the network meta-analysis, therefore it does not appear in the ranking. Treatment with denosumab results in increased occurrence of the adverse event ONJ (RR 3.45, 95% CI 1.06 to 11.24; per 1000 participants 30 more (1 more to 125 more); high-certainty evidence; 4 trials, 3006 participants) compared to no treatment/placebo. When comparing zoledronic acid to no treatment/placebo, the confidence intervals include the possibility of benefit or harm, therefore treatment with zoledronic acid probably neither reduces nor increases ONJ (RR 1.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 4.87; per 1000 participants 11 more (3 less to 47 more); moderate-certainty evidence; network based on 4 trials including 3006 participants). Compared to no treatment/placebo, treatment with zoledronic acid (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97) and denosumab (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.96) may result in a reduction of the total number of SREs (per 1000 participants 75 fewer (131 fewer to 14 fewer) and 131 fewer (215 fewer to 19 fewer); both low-certainty evidence; 12 trials, 5240 participants). Treatment with zoledronic acid and denosumab likely neither reduces nor increases mortality when compared to no treatment/placebo (zoledronic acid RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.01; per 1000 participants 48 fewer (97 fewer to 5 more); denosumab RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.11; per 1000 participants 34 fewer (111 fewer to 54 more); both moderate-certainty evidence; 13 trials, 5494 participants). Due to insufficient reporting, no network meta-analysis was possible for the outcome quality of life. One study with 1904 participants comparing zoledronic acid and denosumab showed that more zoledronic acid-treated participants than denosumab-treated participants experienced a greater than or equal to five-point decrease in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General total scores over a range of 18 months (average relative difference = 6.8%, range -9.4% to 14.6%) or worsening of cancer-related quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When considering bone-modifying agents as supportive treatment, one has to balance between efficacy and acceptability. Results suggest that Zoledronic acid likely increases both the proportion of participants with pain response, and the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events However, more trials with head-to-head comparisons including all potential agents are needed to draw the whole picture and proof the results of this analysis.

2.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 10: CD013600, 2020 10 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33044747

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and are currently being investigated in trials as potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding the benefits and risks is required.  OBJECTIVES: To continually assess, as more evidence becomes available, whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in treatment of people with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Research Article Database and trial registries to identify completed and ongoing studies on 19 August 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19, irrespective of study design, disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)) and studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2.0 tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs), and the assessment criteria for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer for non-controlled NRSIs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at hospital discharge, mortality (time to event), improvement of clinical symptoms (7, 15, and 30 days after transfusion), grade 3 and 4 adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). MAIN RESULTS: This is the second living update of our review. We included 19 studies (2 RCTs, 8 controlled NRSIs, 9 non-controlled NRSIs) with 38,160 participants, of whom 36,081 received convalescent plasma. Two completed RCTs are awaiting assessment (published after 19 August 2020). We identified a further 138 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 73 are randomised (3 reported in a study registry as already being completed, but without results). We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. We did not include data from controlled NRSIs in data synthesis because of critical risk of bias. The overall certainty of evidence was low to very low, due to study limitations and results including both potential benefits and harms.  Effectiveness of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19  We included results from two RCTs (both stopped early) with 189 participants, of whom 95 received convalescent plasma. Control groups received standard care at time of treatment without convalescent plasma. We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma decreases all-cause mortality at hospital discharge (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.34; 1 RCT, 86 participants; low-certainty evidence).  We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma decreases mortality (time to event) (hazard ratio (HR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.25; 2 RCTs, 189 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may result in little to no difference in improvement of clinical symptoms (i.e. need for respiratory support) at seven days (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.19; 1 RCT, 103 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may increase improvement of clinical symptoms at up to 15 days (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.11; 2 RCTs, 189 participants; low-certainty evidence), and at up to 30 days (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.43; 2 studies, 188 participants; low-certainty evidence).  No studies reported on quality of life.  Safety of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 We included results from two RCTs, eight controlled NRSIs and nine non-controlled NRSIs assessing safety of convalescent plasma. Reporting of safety data and duration of follow-up was variable. The controlled studies reported on AEs and SAEs only in participants receiving convalescent plasma. Some, but not all, studies included death as a SAE.  The studies did not report the grade of AEs. Fourteen studies (566 participants) reported on AEs of possible grade 3 or 4 severity. The majority of these AEs were allergic or respiratory events. We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of moderate to severe AEs (very low-certainty evidence).  17 studies (35,944 participants) assessed SAEs for 20,622 of its participants. The majority of participants were from one non-controlled NRSI (20,000 participants), which reported on SAEs within the first four hours and within an additional seven days after transfusion. There were 63 deaths, 12 were possibly and one was probably related to transfusion. There were 146 SAEs within four hours and 1136 SAEs within seven days post-transfusion. These were predominantly allergic or respiratory, thrombotic or thromboembolic and cardiac events. We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma therapy results in a clinically relevant increased risk of SAEs (low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma is beneficial for people admitted to hospital with COVID-19. There was limited information regarding grade 3 and 4 AEs to determine the effect of convalescent plasma therapy on clinically relevant SAEs. In the absence of a control group, we are unable to assess the relative safety of convalescent plasma therapy.  While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, recruiting the anticipated number of participants into these studies is problematic. The early termination of the first two RCTs investigating convalescent plasma, and the lack of data from 20 studies that have completed or were due to complete at the time of this update illustrate these challenges. Well-designed studies should be prioritised. Moreover, studies should report outcomes in the same way, and should consider the importance of maintaining comparability in terms of co-interventions administered in all study arms.  There are 138 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 73 are RCTs (three already completed). This is the second living update of the review, and we will continue to update this review periodically. Future updates may show different results to those reported here.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus/terapia , Pneumonia Viral/terapia , Viés , Causas de Morte , Infecções por Coronavirus/mortalidade , Humanos , Imunização Passiva/efeitos adversos , Imunização Passiva/métodos , Imunização Passiva/estatística & dados numéricos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados não Aleatórios como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral/mortalidade , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Resultado do Tratamento
3.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 7: CD012022, 2020 07 31.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32735048

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) is the most common cancer of the lymphatic system in Western countries. Several clinical and biological factors for CLL have been identified. However, it remains unclear which of the available prognostic models combining those factors can be used in clinical practice to predict long-term outcome in people newly-diagnosed with CLL. OBJECTIVES: To identify, describe and appraise all prognostic models developed to predict overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) or treatment-free survival (TFS) in newly-diagnosed (previously untreated) adults with CLL, and meta-analyse their predictive performances. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (from January 1950 to June 2019 via Ovid), Embase (from 1974 to June 2019) and registries of ongoing trials (to 5 March 2020) for development and validation studies of prognostic models for untreated adults with CLL. In addition, we screened the reference lists and citation indices of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all prognostic models developed for CLL which predict OS, PFS, or TFS, provided they combined prognostic factors known before treatment initiation, and any studies that tested the performance of these models in individuals other than the ones included in model development (i.e. 'external model validation studies'). We included studies of adults with confirmed B-cell CLL who had not received treatment prior to the start of the study. We did not restrict the search based on study design. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We developed a data extraction form to collect information based on the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS). Independent pairs of review authors screened references, extracted data and assessed risk of bias according to the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). For models that were externally validated at least three times, we aimed to perform a quantitative meta-analysis of their predictive performance, notably their calibration (proportion of people predicted to experience the outcome who do so) and discrimination (ability to differentiate between people with and without the event) using a random-effects model. When a model categorised individuals into risk categories, we pooled outcome frequencies per risk group (low, intermediate, high and very high). We did not apply GRADE as guidance is not yet available for reviews of prognostic models. MAIN RESULTS: From 52 eligible studies, we identified 12 externally validated models: six were developed for OS, one for PFS and five for TFS. In general, reporting of the studies was poor, especially predictive performance measures for calibration and discrimination; but also basic information, such as eligibility criteria and the recruitment period of participants was often missing. We rated almost all studies at high or unclear risk of bias according to PROBAST. Overall, the applicability of the models and their validation studies was low or unclear; the most common reasons were inappropriate handling of missing data and serious reporting deficiencies concerning eligibility criteria, recruitment period, observation time and prediction performance measures. We report the results for three models predicting OS, which had available data from more than three external validation studies: CLL International Prognostic Index (CLL-IPI) This score includes five prognostic factors: age, clinical stage, IgHV mutational status, B2-microglobulin and TP53 status. Calibration: for the low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups, the pooled five-year survival per risk group from validation studies corresponded to the frequencies observed in the model development study. In the very high-risk group, predicted survival from CLL-IPI was lower than observed from external validation studies. Discrimination: the pooled c-statistic of seven external validation studies (3307 participants, 917 events) was 0.72 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 0.77). The 95% prediction interval (PI) of this model for the c-statistic, which describes the expected interval for the model's discriminative ability in a new external validation study, ranged from 0.59 to 0.83. Barcelona-Brno score Aimed at simplifying the CLL-IPI, this score includes three prognostic factors: IgHV mutational status, del(17p) and del(11q). Calibration: for the low- and intermediate-risk group, the pooled survival per risk group corresponded to the frequencies observed in the model development study, although the score seems to overestimate survival for the high-risk group. Discrimination: the pooled c-statistic of four external validation studies (1755 participants, 416 events) was 0.64 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.67); 95% PI 0.59 to 0.68. MDACC 2007 index score The authors presented two versions of this model including six prognostic factors to predict OS: age, B2-microglobulin, absolute lymphocyte count, gender, clinical stage and number of nodal groups. Only one validation study was available for the more comprehensive version of the model, a formula with a nomogram, while seven studies (5127 participants, 994 events) validated the simplified version of the model, the index score. Calibration: for the low- and intermediate-risk groups, the pooled survival per risk group corresponded to the frequencies observed in the model development study, although the score seems to overestimate survival for the high-risk group. Discrimination: the pooled c-statistic of the seven external validation studies for the index score was 0.65 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.70); 95% PI 0.51 to 0.77. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the large number of published studies of prognostic models for OS, PFS or TFS for newly-diagnosed, untreated adults with CLL, only a minority of these (N = 12) have been externally validated for their respective primary outcome. Three models have undergone sufficient external validation to enable meta-analysis of the model's ability to predict survival outcomes. Lack of reporting prevented us from summarising calibration as recommended. Of the three models, the CLL-IPI shows the best discrimination, despite overestimation. However, performance of the models may change for individuals with CLL who receive improved treatment options, as the models included in this review were tested mostly on retrospective cohorts receiving a traditional treatment regimen. In conclusion, this review shows a clear need to improve the conducting and reporting of both prognostic model development and external validation studies. For prognostic models to be used as tools in clinical practice, the development of the models (and their subsequent validation studies) should adapt to include the latest therapy options to accurately predict performance. Adaptations should be timely.


Assuntos
Leucemia Linfocítica Crônica de Células B/mortalidade , Modelos Teóricos , Adulto , Fatores Etários , Viés , Biomarcadores Tumorais , Calibragem , Intervalos de Confiança , Análise Discriminante , Intervalo Livre de Doença , Feminino , Genes p53/genética , Humanos , Cadeias Pesadas de Imunoglobulinas/genética , Região Variável de Imunoglobulina/genética , Leucemia Linfocítica Crônica de Células B/patologia , Masculino , Estadiamento de Neoplasias , Prognóstico , Intervalo Livre de Progressão , Receptores de Antígenos de Linfócitos B/genética , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Proteína Supressora de Tumor p53/genética
4.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 7: CD013600, 2020 07 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32648959

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and are currently being investigated in trials as potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding the benefits and risks is required.  OBJECTIVES: To continually assess, as more evidence becomes available, whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in treatment of people with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Research Article Database and trial registries to identify completed and ongoing studies on 4 June 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19, irrespective of study design, disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)) and studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs), and the assessment criteria for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer for non-controlled NRSIs.  MAIN RESULTS: This is the first living update of our review. We included 20 studies (1 RCT, 3 controlled NRSIs, 16 non-controlled NRSIs) with 5443 participants, of whom 5211 received convalescent plasma, and identified a further 98 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 50 are randomised. We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. Overall risk of bias of included studies was high, due to study design, type of participants, and other previous or concurrent treatments. Effectiveness of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19  We included results from four controlled studies (1 RCT (stopped early) with 103 participants, of whom 52 received convalescent plasma; and 3 controlled NRSIs with 236 participants, of whom 55 received convalescent plasma) to assess effectiveness of convalescent plasma. Control groups received standard care at time of treatment without convalescent plasma. All-cause mortality at hospital discharge (1 controlled NRSI, 21 participants) We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma has any effect on all-cause mortality at hospital discharge (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.31; very low-certainty evidence). Time to death (1 RCT, 103 participants; 1 controlled NRSI, 195 participants) We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma prolongs time to death (RCT: hazard ratio (HR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.82; controlled NRSI: HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.96; very low-certainty evidence). Improvement of clinical symptoms, assessed by need for respiratory support (1 RCT, 103 participants; 1 controlled NRSI, 195 participants) We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma has any effect on improvement of clinical symptoms at seven days (RCT: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.19), 14 days (RCT: RR 1.85, 95% CI 0.91 to 3.77; controlled NRSI: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.29), and 28 days (RCT: RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.81; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life No studies reported this outcome.  Safety of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 We included results from 1 RCT, 3 controlled NRSIs and 10 non-controlled NRSIs assessing safety of convalescent plasma. Reporting of adverse events and serious adverse events was variable. The controlled studies reported on adverse events and serious adverse events only in participants receiving convalescent plasma. The duration of follow-up varied. Some, but not all, studies included death as a serious adverse event.  Grade 3 or 4 adverse events (13 studies, 201 participants) The studies did not report the grade of adverse events. Thirteen studies (201 participants) reported on adverse events of possible grade 3 or 4 severity. The majority of these adverse events were allergic or respiratory events. We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of moderate to severe adverse events (very low-certainty evidence).  Serious adverse events (14 studies, 5201 participants)  Fourteen studies (5201 participants) reported on serious adverse events. The majority of participants were from one non-controlled NRSI (5000 participants), which reported only on serious adverse events limited to the first four hours after convalescent plasma transfusion. This study included death as a serious adverse event; they reported 15 deaths, four of which they classified as potentially, probably or definitely related to transfusion. Other serious adverse events reported in all studies were predominantly allergic or respiratory in nature, including anaphylaxis, transfusion-associated dyspnoea, and transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI). We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma affects the number of serious adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma is beneficial for people admitted to hospital with COVID-19. For safety outcomes we also included non-controlled NRSIs. There was limited information regarding adverse events. Of the controlled studies, none reported on this outcome in the control group. There is only very low-certainty evidence for safety of convalescent plasma for COVID-19.  While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, problems with recruiting the anticipated number of participants into these studies are conceivable. The early termination of the first RCT investigating convalescent plasma, and the multitude of studies registered in the past months illustrate this. It is therefore necessary to critically assess the design of these registered studies, and well-designed studies should be prioritised. Other considerations for these studies are the need to report outcomes for all study arms in the same way, and the importance of maintaining comparability in terms of co-interventions administered in all study arms.  There are 98 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 50 are RCTs. This is the first living update of the review, and we will continue to update this review periodically. These updates may show different results to those reported here.


Assuntos
Betacoronavirus/imunologia , Infecções por Coronavirus/terapia , Pneumonia Viral/terapia , Causas de Morte , Infecções por Coronavirus/imunologia , Infecções por Coronavirus/mortalidade , Término Precoce de Ensaios Clínicos , Humanos , Imunização Passiva/efeitos adversos , Imunização Passiva/métodos , Imunização Passiva/mortalidade , Imunização Passiva/estatística & dados numéricos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados não Aleatórios como Assunto/mortalidade , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados não Aleatórios como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral/imunologia , Pneumonia Viral/mortalidade , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Respiração Artificial/estatística & dados numéricos , Viés de Seleção , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Resultado do Tratamento
5.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 5: CD013600, 2020 05 14.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32406927

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with respiratory virus diseases, and are currently being investigated in trials as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding the benefits and risks is required.  OBJECTIVES: To assess whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: The protocol was pre-published with the Center for Open Science and can be accessed here: osf.io/dwf53  We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Research Article Database and trials registries to identify ongoing studies and results of completed studies on 23 April 2020 for case-series, cohort, prospectively planned, and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology and performed all steps regarding study selection in duplicate by two independent review authors (in contrast to the recommendations of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group). We included studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)) and studies evaluating standard immunoglobulins. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed recommendations of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group regarding data extraction and assessment. To assess bias in included studies, we used the assessment criteria tool for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at hospital discharge, improvement of clinical symptoms (7, 15, and 30 days after transfusion), grade 3 and 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events.  MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies (seven case-series, one prospectively planned, single-arm intervention study) with 32 participants, and identified a further 48 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma (47 studies) or hyperimmune immunoglobulin (one study), of which 22 are randomised. Overall risk of bias of the eight included studies was high, due to: study design; small number of participants; poor reporting within studies; and varied type of participants with different severities of disease, comorbidities, and types of previous or concurrent treatments, including antivirals, antifungals or antibiotics, corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine and respiratory support. We rated all outcomes as very low certainty, and we were unable to summarise numerical data in any meaningful way. As we identified case-series studies only, we reported results narratively. Effectiveness of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 The following reported outcomes could all be related to the underlying natural history of the disease or other concomitant treatment, rather than convalescent plasma. All-cause mortality at hospital discharge All studies reported mortality. All participants were alive at the end of the reporting period, but not all participants had been discharged from hospital by the end of the study (15 participants discharged, 6 still hospitalised, 11 unclear). Follow-up ranged from 3 days to 37 days post-transfusion. We do not know whether convalescent plasma therapy affects mortality (very low-certainty evidence).  Improvement of clinical symptoms (assessed by respiratory support) Six studies, including 28 participants, reported the level of respiratory support required; most participants required respiratory support at baseline. All studies reported improvement in clinical symptoms in at least some participants. We do not know whether convalescent plasma improves clinical symptoms (very low-certainty evidence). Time to discharge from hospital Six studies reported time to discharge from hospital for at least some participants, which ranged from four to 35 days after convalescent plasma therapy.  Admission on the intensive care unit (ICU) Six studies included patients who were critically ill. At final follow-up the majority of these patients were no longer on the ICU or no longer required mechanical ventilation. Length of stay on the ICU Only one study (1 participant) reported length of stay on the ICU. The individual was discharged from the ICU 11 days after plasma transfusion. Safety of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 Grade 3 or 4 adverse events  The studies did not report the grade of adverse events after convalescent plasma transfusion. Two studies reported data relating to participants who had experienced adverse events, that were presumably grade 3 or 4. One case study reported a participant who had moderate fever (38.9 °C). Another study (3 participants) reported a case of severe anaphylactic shock. Four studies reported the absence of moderate or severe adverse events (19 participants). We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of moderate to severe adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events One study (3 participants) reported one serious adverse event. As described above, this individual had severe anaphylactic shock after receiving convalescent plasma. Six studies reported that no serious adverse events occurred. We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of serious adverse events (very low-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified eight studies (seven case-series and one prospectively planned single-arm intervention study) with a total of 32 participants (range 1 to 10). Most studies assessed the risks of the intervention; reporting two adverse events (potentially grade 3 or 4), one of which was a serious adverse event. We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma is effective for people admitted to hospital with COVID-19 as studies reported results inconsistently, making it difficult to compare results and to draw conclusions. We identified very low-certainty evidence on the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma therapy for people with COVID-19; all studies were at high risk of bias and reporting quality was low. No RCTs or controlled non-randomised studies evaluating benefits and harms of convalescent plasma have been completed. There are 47 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, of which 22 are RCTs, and one trial evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. We will update this review as a living systematic review, based on monthly searches in the above mentioned databases and registries. These updates are likely to show different results to those reported here.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus , Imunoglobulinas , Pacientes Internados , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral , Betacoronavirus , Infecções por Coronavirus/terapia , Cuidados Críticos , Estado Terminal , Humanos , Imunização Passiva/efeitos adversos , Imunização Passiva/métodos , Imunoglobulinas/uso terapêutico , Pneumonia Viral/terapia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Respiração Artificial , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Resultado do Tratamento
6.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 2019(11)2019 11 25.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31765002

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma is a bone marrow-based hematological malignancy accounting for approximately two per cent of cancers. First-line treatment for transplant-ineligible individuals consists of multiple drug combinations of bortezomib (V), lenalidomide (R), or thalidomide (T). However, access to these medicines is restricted in many countries worldwide. OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the effectiveness and safety of multiple drug combinations of V, R, and T for adults with newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma and to inform an application for the inclusion of these medicines into the World Health Organization's (WHO) list of essential medicines. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL and MEDLINE, conference proceedings and study registries on 14 February 2019 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing multiple drug combinations of V, R and T for adults with newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing combination therapies of V, R, and T, plus melphalan and prednisone (MP) or dexamethasone (D) for first-line treatment of adults with transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma. We excluded trials including adults with relapsed or refractory disease, trials comparing drug therapies to other types of therapy and trials including second-generation novel agents. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included trials. As effect measures we used hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) and risk ratios (RRs) for adverse events. An HR or RR < 1 indicates an advantage for the intervention compared to the main comparator MP. Where available, we extracted quality of life (QoL) data (scores of standardised questionnaires). Results quoted are from network meta-analysis (NMA) unless stated. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 studies (148 references) comprising 11,403 participants and 21 treatment regimens. Treatments were differentiated between restricted treatment duration (treatment with a pre-specified amount of cycles) and continuous therapy (treatment administered until disease progression, the person becomes intolerant to the drug, or treatment given for a prolonged period). Continuous therapies are indicated with a "c". Risk of bias was generally high across studies due to the open-label study design. Overall survival (OS) Evidence suggests that treatment with RD (HR 0.63 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.99), median OS 55.2 months (35.2 to 87.0)); TMP (HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.97), median OS: 46.4 months (35.9 to 60.0)); and VRDc (HR 0.49 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.92), median OS 71.0 months (37.8 to 133.8)) probably increases survival compared to median reported OS of 34.8 months with MP (moderate certainty). Treatment with VMP may result in a large increase in OS, compared to MP (HR 0.70 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.07), median OS 49.7 months (32.5 to 77.3)), low certainty). Progression-free survival (PFS) Treatment withRD (HR 0.65 (95% CI0.44 to 0.96), median PFS: 24.9 months (16.9 to 36.8)); TMP (HR 0.63 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.78), median PFS:25.7 months (20.8 to 32.4)); VMP (HR 0.56 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.90), median PFS: 28.9 months (18.0 to 46.3)); and VRDc (HR 0.34 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.58), median PFS: 47.6 months (27.9 to 81.0)) may result in a large increase in PFS (low certainty) compared to MP (median reported PFS: 16.2 months). Adverse events The risk of polyneuropathies may be lower with RD compared to treatment with MP (RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.16 to 1.99), risk for RD: 0.5% (0.1 to 1.8), mean reported risk for MP: 0.9% (10 of 1074 patients affected), low certainty). However, the CIs are also compatible with no difference or an increase in neuropathies. Treatment with TMP (RR 4.44 (95% CI1.77 to 11.11), risk: 4.0% (1.6 to 10.0)) and VMP (RR 88.22 (95% CI 5.36 to 1451.11), risk: 79.4% (4.8 to 1306.0)) probably results in a large increase in polyneuropathies compared to MP (moderate certainty). No study reported the amount of participants with grade ≥ 3 polyneuropathies for treatment with VRDc. VMP probably increases the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to MP (RR 1.28 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.54), risk for VMP: 46.2% (38.3 to 55.6), mean risk for MP: 36.1% (177 of 490 patients affected), moderate certainty). RD, TMP, and VRDc were not connected to MP in the network and the risk of SAEs could not be compared. Treatment with RD (RR 4.18 (95% CI 2.13 to 8.20), NMA-risk: 38.5% (19.6 to 75.4)); and TMP (RR 4.10 (95% CI 2.40 to 7.01), risk: 37.7% (22.1 to 64.5)) results in a large increase of withdrawals from the trial due to adverse events (high certainty) compared to MP (mean reported risk: 9.2% (77 of 837 patients withdrew)). The risk is probably slightly increased with VMP (RR 1.06 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.81), risk: 9.75% (5.8 to 16.7), moderate certainty), while it is much increased with VRDc (RR 8.92 (95% CI 3.82 to 20.84), risk: 82.1% (35.1 to 191.7), high certainty) compared to MP. Quality of life QoL was reported in four studies for seven different treatment regimens (MP, MPc, RD, RMP, RMPc, TMP, TMPc) and was measured with four different tools. Assessment and reporting differed between studies and could not be meta-analysed. However, all studies reported an improvement of QoL after initiation of anti-myeloma treatment for all assessed treatment regimens. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on our four pre-selected comparisons of interest, continuous treatment with VRD had the largest survival benefit compared with MP, while RD and TMP also probably considerably increase survival. However, treatment combinations of V, R, and T also substantially increase the incidence of AEs, and lead to a higher risk of treatment discontinuation. Their effectiveness and safety profiles may best be analysed in further randomised head-to-head trials. Further trials should focus on consistent reporting of safety outcomes and should use a standardised instrument to evaluate QoL to ensure comparability of treatment-combinations.


Assuntos
Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Mieloma Múltiplo/tratamento farmacológico , Anticorpos Monoclonais/uso terapêutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Bortezomib/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Lenalidomida/uso terapêutico , Metanálise em Rede , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Talidomida/uso terapêutico
7.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 3: CD011518, 2019 03 27.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30916356

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women. Diagnosis and treatment may drastically affect quality of life, causing symptoms such as sleep disorders, depression and anxiety. Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) is a programme that aims to reduce stress by developing mindfulness, meaning a non-judgmental, accepting moment-by-moment awareness. MBSR seems to benefit patients with mood disorders and chronic pain, and it may also benefit women with breast cancer. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) in women diagnosed with breast cancer. SEARCH METHODS: In April 2018, we conducted a comprehensive electronic search for studies of MBSR in women with breast cancer, in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registries (World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov). We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing MBSR versus no intervention in women with breast cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Using a standardised data form, the review authors extracted data in duplicate on methodological quality, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest (quality of life, fatigue, depression, anxiety, quality of sleep, overall survival and adverse events). For outcomes assessed with the same instrument, we used the mean difference (MD) as a summary statistic for meta-analysis; for those assessed with different instruments, we used the standardised mean difference (SMD). The effect of MBSR was assessed in the short term (end of intervention), medium term (up to 6 months after intervention) and long term (up to 24 months after intervention). MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs fulfilled our inclusion criteria, with most studies reporting that they included women with early breast cancer. Ten RCTs involving 1571 participants were eligible for meta-analysis, while four studies involving 185 participants did not report usable results. Queries to the authors of these four studies were unsuccessful. All studies were at high risk of performance and detection bias since participants could not be blinded, and only 3 of 14 studies were at low risk of selection bias. Eight of 10 studies included in the meta-analysis recruited participants with early breast cancer (the remaining 2 trials did not restrict inclusion to a certain cancer type). Most trials considered only women who had completed cancer treatment.MBSR may improve quality of life slightly at the end of the intervention (based on low-certainty evidence from three studies with a total of 339 participants) but may result in little to no difference up to 6 months (based on low-certainty evidence from three studies involving 428 participants). Long-term data on quality of life (up to two years after completing MBSR) were available for one study in 97 participants (MD 0.00 on questionnaire FACT-B, 95% CI -5.82 to 5.82; low-certainty evidence).In the short term, MBSR probably reduces fatigue (SMD -0.50, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.14; moderate-certainty evidence; 5 studies; 693 participants). It also probably slightly reduces anxiety (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.08; moderate-certainty evidence; 6 studies; 749 participants), and it reduces depression (SMD -0.54, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.22; high-certainty evidence; 6 studies; 745 participants). It probably slightly improves quality of sleep (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.04; moderate-certainty evidence; 4 studies; 475 participants). However, these confidence intervals (except for short-term depression) are compatible with both an improvement and little to no difference.In the medium term, MBSR probably results in little to no difference in medium-term fatigue (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.84 to 0.23; moderate-certainty evidence; 4 studies; 607 participants). The intervention probably slightly reduces anxiety (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.07; moderate-certainty evidence; 7 studies; 1094 participants), depression (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.06; moderate-certainty evidence; 7 studies; 1097 participants) and slightly improves quality of sleep (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.08; moderate-certainty evidence; 4 studies; 654 participants). However, these confidence intervals are compatible with both an improvement and little to no difference.In the long term, moderate-certainty evidence shows that MBSR probably results in little to no difference in anxiety (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.16; 2 studies; 360 participants) or depression (SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.05; 2 studies; 352 participants). No long-term data were available for fatigue or quality of sleep.No study reported data on survival or adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: MBSR may improve quality of life slightly at the end of the intervention but may result in little to no difference later on. MBSR probably slightly reduces anxiety, depression and slightly improves quality of sleep at both the end of the intervention and up to six months later. A beneficial effect on fatigue was apparent at the end of the intervention but not up to six months later. Up to two years after the intervention, MBSR probably results in little to no difference in anxiety and depression; there were no data available for fatigue or quality of sleep.


Assuntos
Neoplasias da Mama/psicologia , Atenção Plena , Estresse Psicológico/terapia , Ansiedade/psicologia , Depressão/psicologia , Fadiga/psicologia , Feminino , Humanos , Qualidade de Vida , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Transtornos do Sono-Vigília/psicologia , Fatores de Tempo
8.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 1: CD009075, 2019 01 31.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30702150

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Although people with haematological malignancies have to endure long phases of therapy and immobility, which is known to diminish their physical performance level, the advice to rest and avoid intensive exercises is still common practice. This recommendation is partly due to the severe anaemia and thrombocytopenia from which many patients suffer. The inability to perform activities of daily living restricts them, diminishes their quality of life and can influence medical therapy. OBJECTIVES: In this update of the original review (published in 2014) our main objective was to re-evaluate the efficacy, safety and feasibility of aerobic physical exercise for adults suffering from haematological malignancies considering the current state of knowledge. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2018, Issue 7) and MEDLINE (1950 to July 2018) trials registries (ISRCTN, EU clinical trials register and clinicaltrials.gov) and conference proceedings. We did not apply any language restrictions. Two review authors independently screened search results, disagreements were solved by discussion. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing an aerobic physical exercise intervention, intending to improve the oxygen system, in addition to standard care with standard care only for adults suffering from haematological malignancies. We also included studies that evaluated aerobic exercise in addition to strength training. We excluded studies that investigated the effect of training programmes that were composed of yoga, tai chi chuan, qigong or similar types of exercise. We also excluded studies exploring the influence of strength training without additive aerobic exercise as well as studies assessing outcomes without any clinical impact. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed the quality of trials. We used risk ratios (RRs) for adverse events, mortality and 100-day survival, standardised mean differences (SMD) for quality of life (QoL), fatigue, and physical performance, and mean differences (MD) for anthropometric measurements. MAIN RESULTS: In this update, nine trials could be added to the nine trials of the first version of the review, thus we included eighteen RCTs involving 1892 participants. Two of these studies (65 participants) did not provide data for our key outcomes (they analysed laboratory values only) and one study (40 patients) could not be included in the meta-analyses, as results were presented as changes scores only and not as endpoint scores. One trial (17 patients) did not report standard errors and could also not be included in meta-analyses. The overall potential risk of bias in the included trials is unclear, due to poor reporting.The majority of participants suffered from acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL), acute myeloid leukaemia (AML), malignant lymphoma and multiple myeloma, and eight trials randomised people receiving stem cell transplantation. Mostly, the exercise intervention consisted of various walking intervention programmes with different duration and intensity levels.Our primary endpoint overall survival (OS) was only reported in one of these studies. The study authors found no evidence for a difference between both arms (RR = 0.67; P = 0.112). Six trials (one trial with four arms, analysed as two sub-studies) reported numbers of deceased participants during the course of the study or during the first 100 to 180 days. For the outcome mortality, there is no evidence for a difference between participants exercising and those in the control group (RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.52; P = 0.59; 1172 participants, low-certainty evidence).For the following outcomes, higher numbers indicate better outcomes, with 1 being the best result for the standardised mean differences. Eight studies analysed the influence of exercise intervention on QoL. It remains unclear, whether physical exercise improves QoL (SMD 0.11; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.24; 1259 participants, low-certainty evidence). There is also no evidence for a difference for the subscales physical functioning (SMD 0.15; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.32; 8 trials, 1329 participants, low-certainty evidence) and anxiety (SMD 0.03; 95% CI -0.30 to 0.36; 6 trials, 445 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Depression might slightly be improved by exercising (SMD 0.19; 95% CI 0.0 to 0.38; 6 trials, 445 participants, low-certainty evidence). There is moderate-certainty evidence that exercise probably improves fatigue (SMD 0.31; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.48; 9 trials, 826 patients).Six trials (435 participants) investigated serious adverse events. We are very uncertain, whether additional exercise leads to more serious adverse events (RR 1.39; 95% CI 0.94 to 2.06), based on very low-certainty evidence.In addition, we are aware of four ongoing trials. However, none of these trials stated, how many patients they will recruit and when the studies will be completed, thus, potential influence of these trials for the current analyses remains unclear. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Eighteen, mostly small RCTs did not identify evidence for a difference in terms of mortality. Physical exercise added to standard care might improve fatigue and depression. Currently, there is inconclusive evidence regarding QoL, physical functioning, anxiety and SAEs .We need further trials with more participants and longer follow-up periods to evaluate the effects of exercise intervention for people suffering from haematological malignancies. To enhance comparability of study data, development and implementation of core sets of measuring devices would be helpful.


Assuntos
Exercício Físico , Neoplasias Hematológicas/reabilitação , Adulto , Tolerância ao Exercício , Estudos de Viabilidade , Feminino , Neoplasias Hematológicas/complicações , Neoplasias Hematológicas/mortalidade , Humanos , Masculino , Condicionamento Físico Humano , Qigong , Qualidade de Vida , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Treinamento de Resistência , Tai Ji , Ioga
9.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 8: CD011960, 2018 08 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30080246

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) is the most common acute leukaemia affecting adults. Most patients diagnosed with AML are at advanced age and present with co-morbidities, so that intensive therapy such as stem cell transplantation (SCT) is impossible to provide or is accompanied by high risks for serious adverse events and treatment-related mortality. Especially for these patients, it is necessary to find out whether all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA), an intermediate of vitamin A inducing terminal differentiation of leukaemic cell lines, added to chemotherapy confers increased benefit or harm when compared with the same chemotherapy alone. OBJECTIVES: This review aims to determine benefits and harms of ATRA in addition to chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone for adults with AML (not those with acute promyelocytic leukaemia (non-APL)). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, study registries and relevant conference proceedings up to July 2018 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also contacted experts for unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing chemotherapy alone with chemotherapy plus ATRA in patients with all stages of AML. We excluded trials if less than 80% of participants were adults or participants with AML, and if no subgroup data were available. Patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) were included, if they had a refractory anaemia and more than 20% of blasts. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of trials. We contacted study authors to obtain missing information. We used hazard ratios (HR) for overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS; instead of the pre-planned event-free survival, as this outcome was not reported), and we calculated risk ratios (RR) for the other outcomes quality of life, on-study mortality and adverse events. We presented all measures with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: Our search resulted in 2192 potentially relevant references, of which we included eight trials with 28 publications assessing 3998 patients. Overall, we judged the potential risk of bias of the eight included trials as moderate. Two of eight trials were published as abstracts only. All the included trials used different chemotherapy schedules and one trial only evaluated the effect of the hypomethylating agent decitabine, a drug know to affect epigenetics, in combination with ATRA.The addition of ATRA to chemotherapy resulted in probably little or no difference in OS compared to chemotherapy only (2985 participants; HR 0.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.02); moderate-certainty evidence). Based on a mortality rate at 24 months of 70% with chemotherapy alone, the mortality rate with chemotherapy plus ATRA was 68% (95% CI 65% to 71%).For DFS, complete response rate (CRR) and on-study mortality there was probably little or no difference between treatment groups (DFS: 1258 participants, HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.12; CRR: 3081 participants, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.09; on-study mortality: 2839 participants, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.30, all moderate-certainty evidence).Three trials with 1428 participants reported the adverse events 'infection' and 'cardiac toxicity': There was probably no, or little difference in terms of infection rate between participants receiving ATRA or not (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.15; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether ATRA decreases cardiac toxicity (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.90; P = 0.02, very low certainty-evidence, however, cardiac toxicity was low).Rates and severity of diarrhoea and nausea/vomiting were assessed in two trials with 337 patients and we are uncertain whether there is a difference between treatment arms (diarrhoea: RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 4.47; nausea/vomiting: RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.85; both very low-certainty evidence).Quality of life was not reported by any of the included trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence for a difference between participants receiving ATRA in addition to chemotherapy or chemotherapy only for the outcome OS. Regarding DFS, CRR and on-study mortality, there is probably no evidence for a difference between treatment groups. Currently, it seems the risk of adverse events are comparable to chemotherapy only.As quality of life has not been evaluated in any of the included trials, further research is needed to clarify the effect of ATRA on quality of life.


Assuntos
Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Leucemia Mieloide Aguda/tratamento farmacológico , Tretinoína/uso terapêutico , Adulto , Antineoplásicos/efeitos adversos , Decitabina/efeitos adversos , Decitabina/uso terapêutico , Diarreia/induzido quimicamente , Progressão da Doença , Coração/efeitos dos fármacos , Humanos , Infecções/induzido quimicamente , Leucemia Mieloide Aguda/mortalidade , Náusea/induzido quimicamente , Recidiva , Tretinoína/efeitos adversos , Vômito/induzido quimicamente
10.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 7: CD012556, 2018 07 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30001476

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) is a cancer of the lymphatic system, and involves the lymph nodes, spleen and other organs such as the liver, lung, bone or bone marrow, depending on the tumour stage. With cure rates of up to 90%, HL is one of the most curable cancers worldwide. Approximately 10% of people with HL will be refractory to initial treatment or will relapse; this is more common in people with advanced stage or bulky disease. Standard of care for these people is high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), but only 55% of participants treated with high-dose chemotherapy and ASCT are free from treatment failure at three years, with an overall survival (OS) of about 80% at three years.Checkpoint inhibitors that target the interaction of the programmed death (PD)-1 immune checkpoint receptor, and its ligands PD-L1 and PD-L2, have shown remarkable activity in a wide range of malignancies. Nivolumab is an anti-(PD)-1 monoclonal antibody and currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, renal cell carcinoma and, since 2016, for classical Hodgkin's lymphoma (cHL) after treatment with ASCT and brentuximab vedotin. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of nivolumab in adults with HL (irrespective of stage of disease). SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, conference proceedings and six study registries from January 2000 to May 2018 for prospectively planned trials evaluating nivolumab. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included prospectively planned trials evaluating nivolumab in adults with HL. We excluded trials in which less than 80% of participants had HL, unless the trial authors provided the subgroup data for these participants in the publication or after we contacted the trial authors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed potential risk of bias. We used the software RobotReviewer to extract data and compared results with our findings. As we did not identify any randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or non-RCTs, we did not meta-analyse data. MAIN RESULTS: Our search found 782 potentially relevant references. From these, we included three trials without a control group, with 283 participants. In addition, we identified 14 ongoing trials evaluating nivolumab, of which two are randomised. Risk of bias of the three included studies was moderate to high. All of the participants were in relapsed stage, most of them were heavily pretreated and had received at least two previous treatments, most of them had also undergone ASCT. As we did not identify any RCTs, we could not use the software RobotReviewer to assess risk of bias. The software identified correctly that one study was not an RCT and did not extract any trial data, but extracted characteristics of the other two studies (although also not RCTs) in a sufficient way.Two studies with 260 participants evaluated OS. After six months, OS was 100% in one study and median OS (the timepoint when only 50% of participants were alive) was not reached in the other trial after a median follow-up of 18 months (interquartile range (IQR) 15 to 22 months) (very low certainty evidence, due to observational trial design, heterogenous patient population in terms of pretreatments and various follow-up times (downgrading by 1 point)). In one study, one out of three cohorts reported quality of life. It was unclear whether there was an effect on quality of life as only a subset of participants filled out the follow-up questionnaire (very low certainty evidence). Three trials (283 participants) evaluated progression-free survival (PFS) (very low certainty evidence). Six-month PFS ranged between 60% and 86%, and median PFS ranged between 12 and 18 months. All three trials (283 participants) reported complete response rates, ranging from 12% to 29%, depending on inclusion criteria and participants' previous treatments (very low certainty evidence).One trial (243 participants) reported drug-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs) only after a median follow-up of 18 months (IQR 15 to 22 months); these were fatigue (23%), diarrhoea (15%), infusion reactions (14%) and rash (12%). The other two trials (40 participants) reported 23% to 52% grade 3 or 4 AEs after six months' follow-up (very low certainty evidence). Only one trial (243 participants) reported drug-related serious AEs; 2% of participants developed infusion reactions and 1% pneumonitis (very low certainty evidence).None of the studies reported treatment-related mortality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: To date, data on OS, quality of life, PFS, response rate, or short- and long-term AEs are available from small uncontrolled trials only. The three trials included heavily pretreated participants, which had previously undergone regimens of BV or ASCT. For these participants, median OS was not reached after follow-up times of at least 16 months (more than 50% of participants with a limited life expectancy were alive at this timepoint). Only one cohort out of three only reported quality of life, with limited follow-up data so that meaningful conclusions were not possible. Serious adverse events occurred rarely. Currently, data are too sparse to make a clear statement on nivolumab for people with relapsed or refractory HL except for heavily pretreated people, which had previously undergone regimens of BV or ASCT. When interpreting these results, it is important to consider that proper RCTs should confirm these findings.As there are 14 ongoing trials evaluating nivolumab, of which two are RCTs, it is possible that an update of this review will be published in the near future and that this update will show different results to those reported here.


Assuntos
Anticorpos Monoclonais/uso terapêutico , Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Doença de Hodgkin/tratamento farmacológico , Adulto , Doença de Hodgkin/patologia , Humanos , Nivolumabe , Software
11.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 12: CD006250, 2017 12 26.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29278410

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The prevalence and incidence of pain and skeletal complications of metastatic bone disease such as pathologic fractures, spinal cord compression and hypercalcemia is high and an important contributor to morbidity, poor performance status and decreased quality of life. Moreover, pathologic fractures are associated with increased risk of death in people with disseminated malignancies. Therefore, prevention of pain and fractures are important goals in men with prostate cancer at risk for skeletal complications. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of bisphosphonates in men with bone metastases from prostate cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies by electronic search of bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and MEDLINE on 13 July 2017 and trial registries. We handsearched the Proceedings of American Society of Clinical Oncology (to July 2017) and reference lists of all eligible trials identified. This is an update of a review last published in 2006. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled studies comparing the effectiveness of bisphosphonates in men with bone metastases from prostate cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of trials. We defined the proportion of participants with pain response as the primary end point; secondary outcomes were skeletal-related events, mortality, quality of life, adverse events, analgesic consumption and disease progression. We assessed the quality of the evidence for the main outcomes using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 trials reporting on 4843 participants comparing the effect of bisphosphonate administration to control regimens. PRIMARY OUTCOME: there was no clear difference in the proportion of participants with pain response (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.43; P = 0.20; I2 = 0%; 3 trials; 876 participants; low quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in a pain response in 40 more participants per 1000 (19 fewer to 114 more). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: bisphosphonates probably reduced the incidence of skeletal-related events in participants with prostate cancer metastatic to bone (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.94; P = 0.27; I2 = 19%; 9 trials; 3153 participants; moderate quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in 58 fewer SREs per 1000 (85 fewer to 27 fewer).We found no clinically relevant differences in mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.04; P = 0.43; I2 = 1%; 9 trials; 2450 participants; moderate quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in 16 fewer deaths per 1000 (47 fewer to 21 more).Outcome definition of quality of life and the measurement tools varied greatly across trials and we were unable to extract any quantitative data for meta-analysis.Bisphosphonates probably increased the number of participants affected by nausea (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41; P = 0.05; I2 = 0%; 9 trials; 3008 participants; moderate quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in seven more cases of nausea per 1000 (0 fewer to 14 more). Bisphosphonates probably increased the number of renal adverse events (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.46; P = 0.01; I2 = 0%; 7 trials; 1794 participants; moderate quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in 22 more renal adverse events per 1000 (4 more to 50 more). We found no clear difference in the number of participants with osteonecrosis of the jaw between groups (RR 1.92, 95% CI 0.75 to 4.90; P = 0.17; I2 = 0%; 5 trials; 1626 participants; very low quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in seven more cases with osteonecrosis of the jaw per 1000 (2 fewer to 29 more). We observed no clinically relevant difference in the proportion of participants with decreased analgesic consumption (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.63; P = 0.28; I2 = 37%; 4 trials; 416 participants). Statistical analysis revealed that bisphosphonates probably reduced the number of participants with disease progression (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.98; P = 0.006; I2 = 0%; 7 trials; 2115 participants; moderate quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in 36 fewer cases of disease progression per 1000 (71 fewer to 7 fewer).Findings of our predefined subgroup and sensitivity analyses were no different from those of the primary analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on low quality evidence, there may be no clinically relevant difference in the proportion of men with pain response between bisphosphonates and control regimens in men with bone metastases from prostate cancer. Bisphosphonates probably decrease the number of skeletal-related events and disease progression. These benefits need to be weighed against the increased risk of renal impairment and nausea in men receiving bisphosphonates. Future studies should explicitly evaluate patient important outcomes such as quality of life and pain by using standardized and comparable assessment tools.


Assuntos
Conservadores da Densidade Óssea/uso terapêutico , Neoplasias Ósseas/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Ósseas/secundário , Difosfonatos/uso terapêutico , Dor/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias da Próstata , Osteonecrose da Arcada Osseodentária Associada a Difosfonatos/epidemiologia , Conservadores da Densidade Óssea/efeitos adversos , Neoplasias Ósseas/mortalidade , Difosfonatos/efeitos adversos , Humanos , Rim/efeitos dos fármacos , Masculino , Náusea/induzido quimicamente , Dor/etiologia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto
12.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 9: CD009883, 2017 09 30.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28962071

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) is one of the most frequent haematologic malignancies of the elderly population and characterised by progenitor cell dysplasia with ineffective haematopoiesis and a high rate of transformation to acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). Thrombocytopenia represents a common problem for patients with MDS. ranging from mild to serious bleeding events and death. To manage thrombocytopenia, the current standard treatment includes platelet transfusion, unfortunately leading to a range of side effects. Thrombopoietin (TPO) mimetics represent an alternative treatment option for MDS patients with thrombocytopenia. However, it remains unclear, whether TPO mimetics influence the increase of blast cells and therefore to premature progression to AML. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of thrombopoietin (TPO) mimetics for patients with MDS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for randomised controlled trials in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (January 2000 to August 2017), trials registries (ISRCTN, EU clinical trials register and clinicaltrials.gov) and conference proceedings. We did not apply any language restrictions. Two review authors independently screened search results, disagreements were solved by discussion. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing TPO mimetics with placebo, no further treatment or another TPO mimetic in patients with MDS of all risk groups, without gender, age or ethnicity restrictions. Additional chemotherapeutic treatment had to be equal in both arms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of trials, disagreements were resolved by discussion. Risk ratio (RR) was used to analyse mortality during study, transformation to AML, incidence of bleeding events, transfusion requirement, all adverse events, adverse events >= grade 3, serious adverse events and platelet response. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) have been extracted as hazard ratios, but could not be pooled as results were reported in heterogenous ways. Health-related quality of life and duration of thrombocytopenia would have been analysed as standardised mean differences, but no trial reported these outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any trial comparing one TPO mimetic versus another. We analysed six eligible trials involving 746 adult patients. All trials were reported as randomised and double-blind trials including male and female patients. Two trials compared TPO mimetics (romiplostim or eltrombopag) with placebo, one trial evaluated eltrombopag in addition to the hypomethylating agent azacitidine, two trials analysed romiplostim additionally to a hypomethylating agent (azacitidine or decitabine) and one trial evaluated romiplostim in addition to the immunomodulatory drug lenalidomide. There are more data on romiplostim (four included, completed, full-text trials) than on eltrombopag (two trials included: one full-text publication, one abstract publication). Due to small sample sizes and imbalances in baseline characteristics in three trials and premature termination of two studies, we judged the potential risk of bias of all included trials as high.Due to heterogenous reporting, we were not able to pool data for OS. Instead of that, we analysed mortality during study. There is little or no evidence for a difference in mortality during study for thrombopoietin mimetics compared to placebo (RR 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.27, N = 6 trials, 746 patients, low-quality evidence). It is unclear whether the use of TPO mimetics induces an acceleration of transformation to AML (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.77, N = 5 trials, 372 patients, very low-quality evidence).Thrombopoietin mimetics probably improve the incidence of all bleeding events (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.99, N = 5 trials, 390 patients, moderate-quality evidence). This means that in the study population, 713 out of 1000 in the placebo arm will have a bleeding event, compared to 656 of 1000 (95% CI 613 to 699) in the TPO mimetics arm. There is little or no evidence for a difference that TPO mimetics significantly diminish the rate of transfusion requirement (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.05, N = 4 trials, 358 patients, low-quality evidence). No studies were found that looked at quality of life or duration of thrombocytopenia.There is no evidence that patients given TPO mimetics suffer more all adverse events (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.07, N = 5 trials, 390 patients, moderate-quality evidence). There is uncertainty whether the number of serious adverse events decrease under therapy with TPO mimetics (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.46, N = 4 trials, 356 patients, very low-quality evidence).We identified one ongoing study and one study marked as completed (March 2015), but without publication of results for MDS patients (only results reported for AML and MDS patients together). Both studies evaluate MDS patients receiving eltrombopag in comparison to placebo. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No trial evaluated one TPO mimetic versus another.Six trials including adult patients analysed one TPO mimetic versus placebo, sometimes combined with standard therapy in both arms. Given the uncertainty of the quality of evidence, meta-analyses show that there is little or no evidence for a difference in mortality during study and premature progress to AML. However, these assumptions have to be further explored. Treatment with TPO mimetics resulted in a lower number of MDS patients suffering from bleeding events.There is no evidence for a difference between study groups regarding transfusion requirement. Enlarged sample sizes and a longer follow-up of future trials should improve the estimate of safety and efficacy of TPO mimetics, moreover health-related quality of life should be evaluated. As two ongoing studies currently investigate eltrombopag (one already completed, but without published results), we are awaiting results for this drug.


Assuntos
Benzoatos/uso terapêutico , Hidrazinas/uso terapêutico , Síndromes Mielodisplásicas/complicações , Pirazóis/uso terapêutico , Receptores Fc/uso terapêutico , Proteínas Recombinantes de Fusão/uso terapêutico , Trombocitopenia/tratamento farmacológico , Trombopoetina/uso terapêutico , Adulto , Azacitidina/análogos & derivados , Azacitidina/uso terapêutico , Transfusão de Sangue/estatística & dados numéricos , Decitabina , Feminino , Hemorragia/induzido quimicamente , Humanos , Lenalidomida , Leucemia Mieloide Aguda/etiologia , Masculino , Síndromes Mielodisplásicas/mortalidade , Qualidade de Vida , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Talidomida/análogos & derivados , Talidomida/uso terapêutico , Trombocitopenia/etiologia
13.
Haematologica ; 102(10): 1748-1757, 2017 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28912173

RESUMO

Treatment intensification to maximize disease control and reduced intensity approaches to minimize the risk of late sequelae have been evaluated in newly diagnosed Hodgkin lymphoma. The influence of these interventions on the risk of secondary malignant neoplasms, progression-free survival and overall survival is reported in the meta-analysis herein, based on individual patient data from 9498 patients treated within 16 randomized controlled trials for newly diagnosed Hodgkin lymphoma between 1984 and 2007. Secondary malignant neoplasms were meta-analyzed using Peto's method as time-to-event outcomes. For progression-free and overall survival, hazard ratios derived from each trial using Cox regression were combined by inverse-variance weighting. Five study questions (combined-modality treatment vs. chemotherapy alone; more extended vs. involved-field radiotherapy; radiation at higher doses vs. radiation at 20 Gy; more vs. fewer cycles of the same chemotherapy protocol; standard-dose chemotherapy vs. intensified chemotherapy) were investigated. After a median follow-up of 7.4 years, dose-intensified chemotherapy resulted in better progression-free survival rates (P=0.007) as compared with standard-dose chemotherapy, but was associated with an increased risk of therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia/myelodysplastic syndromes (P=0.0028). No progression-free or overall survival differences were observed between combined-modality treatment and chemotherapy alone, but more secondary malignant neoplasms were seen after combined-modality treatment (P=0.010). For the remaining three study questions, outcomes and secondary malignancy rates did not differ significantly between treatment strategies. The results of this meta-analysis help to weigh up efficacy and secondary malignancy risk for the choice of first-line treatment for Hodgkin lymphoma patients. However, final conclusions regarding secondary solid tumors require longer follow-up.


Assuntos
Doença de Hodgkin/mortalidade , Segunda Neoplasia Primária/etiologia , Segunda Neoplasia Primária/mortalidade , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efeitos adversos , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Terapia Combinada/efeitos adversos , Terapia Combinada/métodos , Intervalo Livre de Doença , Seguimentos , Doença de Hodgkin/terapia , Humanos , Razão de Chances , Modelos de Riscos Proporcionais , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto
14.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 9: CD008814, 2017 09 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28901021

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Efficacy and the risk of severe late effects have to be well-balanced in treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). Late adverse effects include secondary malignancies which often have a poor prognosis. To synthesise evidence on the risk of secondary malignancies after current treatment approaches comprising chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy, we performed a meta-analysis based on individual patient data (IPD) from patients treated for newly diagnosed HL. OBJECTIVES: We investigated several questions concerning possible changes in the risk of secondary malignancies when modifying chemotherapy or radiotherapy (omission of radiotherapy, reduction of the radiation field, reduction of the radiation dose, use of fewer chemotherapy cycles, intensification of chemotherapy). We also analysed whether these modifications affect progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and Cochrane CENTRAL trials databases comprehensively in June 2010 for all randomised trials in HL since 1984. Key international trials registries were also searched. The search was updated in March 2015 without collecting further IPD (one further eligible study found) and again in July 2017 (no further eligible studies). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for untreated HL patients which enrolled at least 50 patients per arm, completed recruitment by 2007 and performed a treatment comparison relevant to our objectives. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study groups submitted IPD, including age, sex, stage and the outcomes secondary malignant neoplasm (SMN), OS and PFS as time-to-event data. We meta-analysed these data using Petos method (SMN) and Cox regression with inverse-variance pooling (OS, PFS) for each of the five study questions, and performed subgroup and sensitivity analyses to assess the applicability and robustness of the results. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 21 eligible trials and obtained IPD for 16. For four studies no data were supplied despite repeated efforts, while one study was only identified in 2015 and IPD were not sought. For each study question, between three and six trials with between 1101 and 2996 participants in total and median follow-up between 6.7 and 10.8 years were analysed. All participants were adults and mainly under 60 years. Risk of bias was assessed as low for the majority of studies and outcomes. Chemotherapy alone versus same chemotherapy plus radiotherapy. Omitting additional radiotherapy probably reduces secondary malignancy incidence (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.82, low quality of evidence), corresponding to an estimated reduction of eight-year SMN risk from 8% to 4%. This decrease was particularly true for secondary acute leukemias. However, we had insufficient evidence to determine whether OS rates differ between patients treated with chemotherapy alone versus combined-modality (hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.11, moderate quality of evidence). There was a slightly higher rate of PFS with combined modality, but our confidence in the results was limited by high levels of statistical heterogeneity between studies (HR 1.31, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.73, moderate quality of evidence). Chemotherapy plus involved-field radiation versus same chemotherapy plus extended-field radiation (early stages) . There is insufficient evidence to determine whether smaller radiation field reduces SMN risk (Peto OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.16, low quality of evidence), OS (HR 0.89, 95% C: 0.70 to 1.12, high quality of evidence) or PFS (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21, high quality of evidence). Chemotherapy plus lower-dose radiation versus same chemotherapy plus higher-dose radiation (early stages). There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of lower-radiation dose on SMN risk (Peto OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.50, low quality of evidence), OS (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.28, high quality of evidence) or PFS (HR 1.20, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.48, high quality of evidence). Fewer versus more courses of chemotherapy (each with or without radiotherapy; early stages). Fewer chemotherapy courses probably has little or no effect on SMN risk (Peto OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.62), OS (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.73 to1.34) or PFS (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.45).Outcomes had a moderate (SMN) or high (OS, PFS) quality of evidence. Dose-intensified versus ABVD-like chemotherapy (with or without radiotherapy in each case). In the mainly advanced-stage patients who were treated with intensified chemotherapy, the rate of secondary malignancies was low. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effect of chemotherapy intensification (Peto OR 1.37, CI 0.89 to 2.10, low quality of evidence). The rate of secondary acute leukemias (and for younger patients, all secondary malignancies) was probably higher than among those who had treatment with standard-dose ABVD-like protocols. In contrast, the intensified chemotherapy protocols probably improved PFS (eight-year PFS 75% versus 69% for ABVD-like treatment, HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.7 to 0.95, moderate quality of evidence). Evidence suggesting improved survival with intensified chemotherapy was not conclusive (HR: 0.85, CI 0.70 to 1.04), although escalated-dose BEACOPP appeared to lengthen survival compared to ABVD-like chemotherapy (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.79, moderate quality of evidence).Generally, we could draw valid conclusions only in terms of secondary haematological malignancies, which usually occur less than 10 years after initial treatment, while follow-up within the present analysis was too short to record all solid tumours. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The risk of secondary acute myeloid leukaemia and myelodysplastic syndrome (AML/MDS) is increased but efficacy is improved among patients treated with intensified chemotherapy protocols. Treatment decisions must be tailored for individual patients. Consolidating radiotherapy is associated with an increased rate of secondary malignancies; therefore it appears important to define which patients can safely be treated without radiotherapy after chemotherapy, both for early and advanced stages. For early stages, treatment optimisation methods such as use of fewer chemotherapy cycles and reduced field or reduced-dose radiotherapy did not appear to markedly affect efficacy or secondary malignancy risk. Due to the limited amount of long-term follow-up in this meta-analysis, further long-term investigations of late events are needed, particularly with respect to secondary solid tumours. Since many older studies have been included, possible improvement of radiotherapy techniques must be considered when interpreting these results.


Assuntos
Doença de Hodgkin/tratamento farmacológico , Doença de Hodgkin/radioterapia , Segunda Neoplasia Primária/prevenção & controle , Adulto , Antineoplásicos/administração & dosagem , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/administração & dosagem , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efeitos adversos , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/normas , Bleomicina/administração & dosagem , Bleomicina/efeitos adversos , Quimiorradioterapia/métodos , Quimiorradioterapia/normas , Dacarbazina/administração & dosagem , Dacarbazina/efeitos adversos , Intervalo Livre de Doença , Doxorrubicina/administração & dosagem , Doxorrubicina/efeitos adversos , Humanos , Leucemia Induzida por Radiação/mortalidade , Leucemia Induzida por Radiação/prevenção & controle , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Síndromes Mielodisplásicas/etiologia , Segunda Neoplasia Primária/etiologia , Segunda Neoplasia Primária/mortalidade , Radioterapia/efeitos adversos , Radioterapia/normas , Dosagem Radioterapêutica , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Vimblastina/administração & dosagem , Vimblastina/efeitos adversos
15.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 5: CD007941, 2017 05 25.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28541603

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: There are two different international standards for the treatment of early unfavourable and advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HL): chemotherapy with escalated BEACOPP (bleomycin/etoposide/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide/vincristine/procarbazine/prednisone) regimen and chemotherapy with ABVD (doxorubicin/bleomycin/vinblastine/dacarbazine) regimen. OBJECTIVES: To determine the advantages and disadvantages of chemotherapy including escalated BEACOPP compared to chemotherapy including ABVD in the treatment of early unfavourable or advanced stage HL as first-line treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for randomised controlled trials in MEDLINE, CENTRAL and conference proceedings (January 1985 to July 2013 and for the update to March 2017) and Embase (1985 to November 2008). Moreover we searched trial registries (March 2017; www.controlled-trials.com, www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search, clinicaltrials.gov, www.eortc.be, www.ghsg.org, www.ctc.usyd.edu.au, www.trialscentral.org/index.html) SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials examining chemotherapy including at least two cycles of escalated BEACOPP regimens compared with chemotherapy including at least four cycles of ABVD regimens as first-line treatment for patients with early unfavourable stage or advanced stage HL. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The effect measures we used were hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and freedom from first progression.We used risk ratios (RRs) relative risks to analyse harms: treatment-related mortality, secondary malignancies (including myeloid dysplastic syndrome (MDS) or acute myeloid leukaemia (AML)), infertility and adverse events.Quality of life was not reported in any trial, therefore not analysed. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality of trials. MAIN RESULTS: We screened 1796 records and identified five eligible trials in total i.e. one trial could be added on the previous review. These trials included only adults (16 to 65 years of age). We included all five trials with 3427 people in the meta-analyses: the HD9 and HD14 trials were co-ordinated in Germany, the HD2000 and GSM-HD trials were performed in Italy and the EORTC 20012 was conducted in Belgium. The overall risk of performance and detection bias was low for overall survival (OS), but was high for other outcomes, as therapy blinding was not feasible. The remaining 'Risk of bias' domains were low and unclear.All trials reported results for OS and progression-free survival (PFS). In contrast to the our first published review (2011) the addition of results from the EORTC 20012 BEACOPP escalated increases OS (3142 participants; HR 0.74 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.97; high-quality evidence). This means that only 90 (70 to 117) patients will die after five years in the BEACOPP escalated arm compared to 120 in the ABVD arm. This survival advantage is also reflected in an increased PFS with BEACOPP escalated (3142 participants; HR 0.54 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.64); moderate-quality evidence), meaning that after five years only 144 (121 to 168) patients will experience a progress, relapse or death in the BEACOPP escalated arm compared to 250 in the ABVD arm.There is no evidence for a difference for treatment-related mortality (2700 participants, RR 2.15 (95% CI = 0.93 to 4.95), low-quality evidence).Although the occurrence of MDS or AML may increase with BEACOPP escalated (3332 participants, RR 3.90 (95% CI 1.36 to 11.21); low-quality evidence)), there is no evidence for a difference between both regimens for overall secondary malignancies (3332 participants, RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.48), low-quality evidence). However, the observation time of the studies included in the review is too short to be expected to demonstrate differences with respect to second solid tumours which would not be expected to show significance until around 15 years after treatment.We are very uncertain how many female patients will be infertile due to chemotherapy and which arm might be favoured (106 participants, RR 1.37 (95% CI 0.83 to 2.26), very low-quality evidence). This is a very small sample, and the age of the patients was not detailed. No analysis of male fertility was provided.Five trials reported adverse events and the analysis shows that the escalated BEACOPP regimens probably causes more haematological toxicities WHO grade III or IV ((anaemia: 2425 participants, RR 10.67 (95% CI 7.14 to 15.93); neutropenia: 519 participants, RR 1.80 (95% CI 1.52 to 2.13); thrombocytopenia: 2425 participants, RR 18.12 (95% CI 11.77 to 27.92); infections: 2425 participants, RR 3.73 (95% CI 2.58 to 5.38), all low-quality evidence).Only one trial (EORTC 20012) planned to assess quality of life, however, no results were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis provides moderate- to high-quality evidence that adult patients between 16 and 60 years of age with early unfavourable and advanced stage HL benefit regarding OS and PFS from first-line chemotherapy including escalated BEACOPP. The proven benefit in OS for patients with advanced HL is a new finding of this updated review due to the inclusion of the results from the EORTC 20012 trial. Furthermore, there is only low-quality evidence of a difference in the total number of secondary malignancies, as the follow-up period might be too short to detect meaningful differences. Low-quality evidence also suggests that people treated with escalated BEACOPP may have a higher risk to develop secondary AML or MDS. Due to the availability of only very low-quality evidence available, we are unable to come to a conclusion in terms of infertility. This review does for the first time suggest a survival benefit. However, it is clear from this review that BEACOPP escalated may be more toxic that ABVD, and very important long-term side effects of second malignancies and infertility have not been sufficiently analysed yet.


Assuntos
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Doença de Hodgkin/tratamento farmacológico , Adolescente , Adulto , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/administração & dosagem , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efeitos adversos , Bleomicina/administração & dosagem , Bleomicina/efeitos adversos , Ciclofosfamida/administração & dosagem , Ciclofosfamida/efeitos adversos , Dacarbazina/administração & dosagem , Dacarbazina/efeitos adversos , Progressão da Doença , Doxorrubicina/administração & dosagem , Doxorrubicina/efeitos adversos , Etoposídeo/administração & dosagem , Etoposídeo/efeitos adversos , Doença de Hodgkin/mortalidade , Doença de Hodgkin/patologia , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Prednisona/administração & dosagem , Prednisona/efeitos adversos , Procarbazina/administração & dosagem , Procarbazina/efeitos adversos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Vimblastina/administração & dosagem , Vimblastina/efeitos adversos , Vincristina/administração & dosagem , Vincristina/efeitos adversos , Adulto Jovem
16.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 4: CD007110, 2017 04 27.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28447341

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Combined modality treatment consisting of chemotherapy followed by localised radiotherapy is the standard treatment for patients with early stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). However, due to long- term adverse effects such as secondary malignancies the role of radiotherapy has been questioned recently and some clinical study groups advocate chemotherapy only for this indication. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of chemotherapy alone compared to chemotherapy plus radiotherapy in adults with early stage HL . SEARCH METHODS: For the or i ginal version of this review, we searched MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL as well as conference proceedings (American Society of Hematology, American Society of Clinical Oncology and International Symposium of Hodgkin Lymphoma) from January 1980 to November 2010 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing chemotherapy alone versus chemotherapy regimens plus radiotherapy. For the updated review we searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL and conference proceedings to December 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing chemotherapy alone with chemotherapy plus radiotherapy in patients with early stage HL. We excluded trials with more than 20% of patients in advanced stage. As the value of radiotherapy in addition to chemotherapy is still not clear, we also compared to more cycles of chemotherapy in the control arm. In this updated review, we also included a second comparison evaluating trials with varying numbers of cycles of chemotherapy between intervention and control arms, same chemotherapy regimen in both arms assumed. We excluded trials evaluating children only, therefore only trials involving adults are included in this updated review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of trials. We contacted study authors to obtain missing information. As effect measures we used hazard ratios (HR) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) and risk ratios (RR) for response rates. Since not all trials reported PFS according to our definitions, we evaluated all similar outcomes (e.g. event-free survival) as PFS/tumour control. MAIN RESULTS: Our search led to 5518 potentially relevant references. From these, we included seven RCTs in the analyses involving 2564 patients. In contrast to the first version of this review including five trials, we excluded trials randomising children. As a result, we excluded one trial from the former analyses and we identified three new trials.Five trials with 1388 patients compared the combination of chemotherapy alone and chemotherapy plus radiotherapy, with the same number of chemotherapy cycles in both arms. The addition of radiotherapy to chemotherapy has probably little or no difference on OS (HR 0.48; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.06; P = 0.07, moderate- quality evidence), however two included trials had potential other high risk of bias due to a high number of patients not receiving planned radiotherapy. After excluding these trials in a sensitivity analysis, the results showed that the combination of chemotherapy and radiotherapy improved OS compared to chemotherapy alone (HR 0.31; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.52; P <0.00001, moderate- quality evidence). In contrast to chemotherapy alone the use of chemotherapy and radiotherapy improved PFS (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.72; P = 0.001; moderate- quality evidence). Regarding infection- related mortality (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.01 to 8.06; P = 0.5; low- quality evidence), second cancer- related mortality (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.07 to 4.29; P = 0.55; low- quality evidence) and cardiac disease- related mortality (RR 2.94; 95% CI 0.31 to 27.55; P = 0.35;low- quality evidence), there is no evidence for a difference between the use of chemotherapy alone and chemotherapy plus radiotherapy. For complete response rate (CRR) (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.25; P = 0.33; low- quality evidence), there is also no evidence for a difference between treatment groups.Two trials with 1176 patients compared the combination of chemotherapy alone and chemotherapy plus radiotherapy, with different numbers of chemotherapy cycles in both arms. OS is reported in one trial only, the use of chemotherapy alone (more chemotherapy cycles) may improve OS compared to chemotherapy plus radiotherapy (HR 2.12; 95% CI 1.03 to 4.37; P = 0.04; low- quality evidence). This trial also had a potential other high risk of bias due to a high number of patients not receiving planned therapy. There is no evidence for a difference between chemotherapy alone and chemotherapy plus radiotherapy regarding PFS (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.14 to 1.24; P = 0.12; low- quality evidence). After excluding the trial with patients not receiving the planned therapy in a sensitivity analysis, the results showed that the combination of chemotherapy and radiotherapy improved PFS compared to chemotherapy alone (HR 0.24; 95% CI 0.070 to 0.88; P = 0.03, based on one trial). For infection- related mortality (RR 6.90; 95% CI 0.36 to 132.34; P = 0.2; low- quality evidence), second cancer- related mortality (RR 2.22; 95% CI 0.7 to 7.03; P = 0.18; low- quality evidence) and cardiac disease-related mortality (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.14 to 6.90; P = 0.99; low-quality evidence), there is no evidence for a difference between the use of chemotherapy alone and chemotherapy plus radiotherapy. CRR rate was not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review compared the effects of chemotherapy alone and chemotherapy plus radiotherapy in adults with early stage HL .For the comparison with same numbers of chemotherapy cycles in both arms, we found moderate- quality evidence that PFS is superior in patients receiving chemotherapy plus radiotherapy than in those receiving chemotherapy alone. The addition of radiotherapy to chemotherapy has probably little or no difference on OS . The sensitivity analysis without the trials with potential other high risk of bias showed that chemotherapy plus radiotherapy improves OS compared to chemotherapy alone.For the comparison with different numbers of chemotherapy cycles between the arms there are no implications for OS and PFS possible, because of the low quality of evidence of the results.


Assuntos
Doença de Hodgkin/tratamento farmacológico , Doença de Hodgkin/radioterapia , Quimiorradioterapia , Terapia Combinada/métodos , Progressão da Doença , Cardiopatias/mortalidade , Doença de Hodgkin/mortalidade , Doença de Hodgkin/patologia , Humanos , Infecções/mortalidade , Segunda Neoplasia Primária/mortalidade , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Recidiva , Análise de Sobrevida
17.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 2: CD009310, 2016 Feb 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26880256

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are a heterogeneous group of haematological diseases which are characterised by a uni- or multilineage dysplasia of haematological stem cells. Standard treatment is supportive care of the arising symptoms including red blood cell transfusions or the administration of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in the case of anaemia or the treatment with granulocyte (G-CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factors (GM-CSF) in cases of neutropenia. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to assess the evidence for the treatment of patients with MDS with G-CSF and GM-CSF in addition to standard therapy in comparison to the same standard therapy or the same standard therapy and placebo. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (from 1950 to 3 December 2015) and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until 3 December 2015), as well as conference proceedings (American Society of Hematology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Hematology Association, European Society of Medical Oncology) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Two review authors independently screened search results. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs examining G-CSF or GM-CSF in addition to standard therapy in patients with newly diagnosed MDS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used hazard ratios (HR) as effect measure for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and time to progression, and risk ratios for response rates, adverse events, antibiotic use and hospitalisation. Two independent review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Investigators of two trials were contacted for subgroup information, however, no further data were provided. G-CSF and GM-CSF were analysed separately. MAIN RESULTS: We screened a total of 566 records. Seven RCTs involving 486 patients were identified, but we could only meta-analyse the two evaluating GM-CSF. We judged the potential risk of bias of these trials as unclear, mostly due to missing information. All trials were randomised and open-label studies. However, three trials were published as abstracts only, therefore we were not able to assess the potential risk of bias for these trials in detail. Overall, data were not reported in a comparable way and patient-related outcomes like survival, time to progression to acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) or the incidence of infections was reported in two trials only.Five RCTs (N = 337) assessed the efficacy of G-CSF in combination with standard therapy (supportive care, chemotherapy or erythropoietin). We were not able to perform meta-analyses for any of the pre-planned outcomes due to inconsistent and insufficient reporting of data. There is no evidence for a difference for overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 1.47), progression-free survival (only P value provided), progression to AML, incidence of infections and number of red blood transfusions (average number of 12 red blood cell transfusions in each arm). We judged the quality of evidence for all these outcomes as very low, due to very high imprecision and potential publication bias, as three trials were published as abstracts only. Data about quality of life and serious adverse events were not reported in any of the included trials.Two RCTs (N = 149) evaluated GM-CSF in addition to standard therapy (chemotherapy). For mortality (two RCTs; HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.26), we found no evidence for a difference (low-quality evidence). Data for progression-free survival and serious adverse events were not comparable across both studies, without evidence for a difference between both arms (low-quality evidence). For infections, red blood cell and platelet transfusions, we found no evidence for a difference, however, these outcomes were reported by one trial only (low-quality evidence). Time to progression to AML and quality of life were not reported at all.Moreover, we identified two cross-over trials, including 244 patients and evaluating GM-CSF versus placebo, without publishing results for each arm before crossing over. In addition, we identified two ongoing studies, one of which was discontinued due to withdrawal of pharmaceutical support, the other was terminated early, both without publishing results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although we identified seven trials with a total number of 486 patients, and two unpublished, prematurely finished studies, this systematic review mainly shows that there is a substantial lack of data, which might inform the use of G-CSF and GM-CSF for the prevention of infections, prolonging of survival and improvement of quality of life. The impact on progression to AML remains unclear.


Assuntos
Fator Estimulador de Colônias de Granulócitos e Macrófagos/uso terapêutico , Fator Estimulador de Colônias de Macrófagos/uso terapêutico , Síndromes Mielodisplásicas/tratamento farmacológico , Eritropoetina/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto
18.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 2: CD011157, 2016 Feb 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26840029

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Malignant neoplasms of the lymphoid or myeloid cell lines including lymphoma, leukaemia and myeloma are referred to as haematological malignancies. Complementary and alternative treatment options such as meditation practice or yoga are becoming popular by treating all aspects of the disease including physical and psychological symptoms. However, there is still unclear evidence about meditation's effectiveness, and how its practice affects the lives of haematologically-diseased patients. OBJECTIVES: This review aims to assess the benefits and harms of meditation practice as an additional treatment to standard care for adults with haematological malignancies. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 8, 2015), MEDLINE (1950 to August 2015), databases of ongoing trials, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (http://www.controlled-trials.com/mrct/), conference proceedings of annual meetings of: the American Society of Hematology; American Society of Clinical Oncology; European Hematology Association; European Congress for Integrative Medicine; and Global Advances in Health and Medicine (2010 to 2015). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using meditation practice for adult patients with haematological malignancies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from eligible studies and assessed the risk of bias according to predefined criteria. We evaluated quality of life and depression. The other outcomes of overall survival, anxiety, fatigue, quality of sleep and adverse events could not be evaluated, because they were not assessed in the included trial. MAIN RESULTS: We included only one small trial published as an abstract article. The included study investigated the effects of meditation practice on patients newly hospitalised with acute leukaemia. Ninety-one participants enrolled in the study, but only 42 participants remained in the trial throughout the six-month follow-up period and were eligible for analysis. There was no information provided about the average age and sex of the study population. We found a high risk for attrition bias and unclear risk for reporting bias, performance and detection bias because of missing data due to abstract publication only, thus we judged the overall risk of bias as high. According to the GRADE criteria, we judged the overall quality of the body of evidence for all predefined outcomes as 'very low', due to the extent of missing data on the study population, and the small sample size.As the abstract publication did not provide numbers and results except P values, we are not able to give more details.Meditation practice might be beneficial for the quality of life of haematologically-diseased patients, with higher scores for participants in the mediation arms compared to the participants in the usual care control group (low quality of evidence). Levels of depression decreased for those practising meditation in both the spiritually-framed meditation group and the secularly-focused meditation group in comparison to the usual care control group, whose levels of depression remained constant (low quality of evidence). The influence of meditation practice on overall survival, fatigue, anxiety, quality of sleep and adverse events remained unclear, as these outcomes were not evaluated in the included trial. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: To estimate the effects of meditation practice for patients suffering from haematological malignancies, more high quality randomised controlled trials are needed. At present there is not enough information available on the effects of meditation in haematologically-diseased patients to draw any conclusion.


Assuntos
Neoplasias Hematológicas/psicologia , Meditação/psicologia , Doença Aguda , Adulto , Depressão/terapia , Humanos , Leucemia/psicologia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto
19.
Acta Oncol ; 55(1): 77-84, 2016.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25997705

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: R-CHOP-21 has remained the standard chemotherapy for aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. It was suggested that decreasing the treatment interval from three weeks (CHOP-21) to two weeks (CHOP-14) may improve survival and disease control of patients with aggressive lymphoma. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of CHOP-like-14 (with or without rituximab) compared to standard CHOP-like -21 on overall survival (OS), disease control and toxicity of patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. In October 2014 we searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, LILACS, conference proceedings, and databases of ongoing trials. Authors were contacted for complementary data. The primary outcome was OS. RESULTS: We identified seven trials (4073 patients), conducted between the years 1999 and 2008. Trials were at low or unclear risk for selection bias, and at low or unclear risk of attrition bias. CHOP-like-14 improved OS of patients with aggressive lymphoma compared to the same regimen given every 21 days (all trials): HR of death 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77-0.97. There was no OS difference between rituximab-CHOP-like 14 to rituximab-CHOP-like-21 (3 trials): HR 0.93 95% CI 0.78-1.10. The rates of progression or death, complete response, treatment-related mortality, grade 3-4 infection, and discontinuation were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: R-CHOP-21 remains the standard of care for patient with aggressive B-cell lymphoma. CHOP-14 can be considered as in case rituximab is omitted.


Assuntos
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Linfoma não Hodgkin/tratamento farmacológico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/administração & dosagem , Ciclofosfamida/administração & dosagem , Doxorrubicina/administração & dosagem , Esquema de Medicação , Humanos , Linfoma não Hodgkin/mortalidade , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Prednisona/administração & dosagem , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Rituximab/administração & dosagem , Vincristina/administração & dosagem
20.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; (12): CD007107, 2015 Dec 21.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26687844

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Febrile neutropenia (FN) and other infectious complications are some of the most serious treatment-related toxicities of chemotherapy for cancer, with a mortality rate of 2% to 21%. The two main types of prophylactic regimens are granulocyte (macrophage) colony-stimulating factors (G(M)-CSF) and antibiotics, frequently quinolones or cotrimoxazole. Current guidelines recommend the use of colony-stimulating factors when the risk of febrile neutropenia is above 20%, but they do not mention the use of antibiotics. However, both regimens have been shown to reduce the incidence of infections. Since no systematic review has compared the two regimens, a systematic review was undertaken. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of G(M)-CSF compared to antibiotics in cancer patients receiving myelotoxic chemotherapy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, databases of ongoing trials, and conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology (1980 to December 2015). We planned to include both full-text and abstract publications. Two review authors independently screened search results. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylaxis with G(M)-CSF versus antibiotics for the prevention of infection in cancer patients of all ages receiving chemotherapy. All study arms had to receive identical chemotherapy regimes and other supportive care. We included full-text, abstracts, and unpublished data if sufficient information on study design, participant characteristics, interventions and outcomes was available. We excluded cross-over trials, quasi-randomised trials and post-hoc retrospective trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the results of the search strategies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and analysed data according to standard Cochrane methods. We did final interpretation together with an experienced clinician. MAIN RESULTS: In this updated review, we included no new randomised controlled trials. We included two trials in the review, one with 40 breast cancer patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy and G-CSF compared to antibiotics, a second one evaluating 155 patients with small-cell lung cancer receiving GM-CSF or antibiotics.We judge the overall risk of bias as high in the G-CSF trial, as neither patients nor physicians were blinded and not all included patients were analysed as randomised (7 out of 40 patients). We considered the overall risk of bias in the GM-CSF to be moderate, because of the risk of performance bias (neither patients nor personnel were blinded), but low risk of selection and attrition bias.For the trial comparing G-CSF to antibiotics, all cause mortality was not reported. There was no evidence of a difference for infection-related mortality, with zero events in each arm. Microbiologically or clinically documented infections, severe infections, quality of life, and adverse events were not reported. There was no evidence of a difference in frequency of febrile neutropenia (risk ratio (RR) 1.22; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 2.84). The quality of the evidence for the two reported outcomes, infection-related mortality and frequency of febrile neutropenia, was very low, due to the low number of patients evaluated (high imprecision) and the high risk of bias.There was no evidence of a difference in terms of median survival time in the trial comparing GM-CSF and antibiotics. Two-year survival times were 6% (0 to 12%) in both arms (high imprecision, low quality of evidence). There were four toxic deaths in the GM-CSF arm and three in the antibiotics arm (3.8%), without evidence of a difference (RR 1.32; 95% CI 0.30 to 5.69; P = 0.71; low quality of evidence). There were 28% grade III or IV infections in the GM-CSF arm and 18% in the antibiotics arm, without any evidence of a difference (RR 1.55; 95% CI 0.86 to 2.80; P = 0.15, low quality of evidence). There were 5 episodes out of 360 cycles of grade IV infections in the GM-CSF arm and 3 episodes out of 334 cycles in the cotrimoxazole arm (0.8%), with no evidence of a difference (RR 1.55; 95% CI 0.37 to 6.42; P = 0.55; low quality of evidence). There was no significant difference between the two arms for non-haematological toxicities like diarrhoea, stomatitis, infections, neurologic, respiratory, or cardiac adverse events. Grade III and IV thrombopenia occurred significantly more frequently in the GM-CSF arm (60.8%) compared to the antibiotics arm (28.9%); (RR 2.10; 95% CI 1.41 to 3.12; P = 0.0002; low quality of evidence). Neither infection-related mortality, incidence of febrile neutropenia, nor quality of life were reported in this trial. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: As we only found two small trials with 195 patients altogether, no conclusion for clinical practice is possible. More trials are necessary to assess the benefits and harms of G(M)-CSF compared to antibiotics for infection prevention in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.


Assuntos
Antibioticoprofilaxia , Fator Estimulador de Colônias de Granulócitos/uso terapêutico , Fator Estimulador de Colônias de Granulócitos e Macrófagos/uso terapêutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efeitos adversos , Neoplasias da Mama/tratamento farmacológico , Neutropenia Febril/prevenção & controle , Feminino , Febre/prevenção & controle , Humanos , Controle de Infecções/métodos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias/mortalidade , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Carcinoma de Pequenas Células do Pulmão/tratamento farmacológico
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...