Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
BMC Complement Med Ther ; 21(1): 112, 2021 Apr 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33827515

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Elderberry has traditionally been used to prevent and treat respiratory problems. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been interest in elderberry supplements to treat or prevent illness, but also concern that elderberry might overstimulate the immune system and increase the risk of 'cytokine storm'. We aimed to determine benefits and harms of elderberry for the prevention and treatment of viral respiratory infections, and to assess the relationship between elderberry supplements and negative health impacts associated with overproduction of pro-inflammatory cytokines. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and searched six databases, four research registers, and two preprint sites for studies. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data from studies, assessed risk of bias using Cochrane tools, and evaluated certainty of estimates using GRADE. Outcomes included new illnesses and the severity and duration of illness. RESULTS: We screened 1187 records and included five randomized trials on elderberry for the treatment or prevention of viral respiratory illness. We did not find any studies linking elderberry to clinical inflammatory outcomes. However, we found three studies measuring production of cytokines ex vivo after ingestion of elderberry. Elderberry may not reduce the risk of developing the common cold; it may reduce the duration and severity of colds, but the evidence is uncertain. Elderberry may reduce the duration of influenza but the evidence is uncertain. Compared to oseltamivir, an elderberry-containing product may be associated with a lower risk of influenza complications and adverse events. We did not find evidence on elderberry and clinical outcomes related to inflammation. However, we found evidence that elderberry has some effect on inflammatory markers, although this effect may decline with ongoing supplementation. One small study compared elderberry to diclofenac (a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug) and provided some evidence that elderberry is as effective or less effective than diclofenac in cytokine reduction over time. CONCLUSIONS: Elderberry may be a safe option for treating viral respiratory illness, and there is no evidence that it overstimulates the immune system. However, the evidence on both benefits and harms is uncertain and information from recent and ongoing studies is necessary to make firm conclusions.

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: 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
4.
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
5.
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
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...