Dataset Information

Informing hot flash treatment decisions for breast cancer survivors: a systematic review of randomized trials comparing active interventions.

ABSTRACT: Patient-centered decision making about hot flash treatments often incorporates a balance of efficacy and side effects in addition to patient preference. This systematic review examines randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing at least two non-hormonal hot flash treatments in breast cancer survivors. In July 2015, PubMed, SCOPUS, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were searched for RCTs comparing active, non-hormonal hot flash treatments in female breast cancer survivors. Thirteen trials were included after identifying 906 potential studies. Four trials were dose comparison studies of pharmacologic treatments citalopram, venlafaxine, gabapentin, and paroxetine. Hot flash reduction did not differ by tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitor use. Citalopram 10, 20, and 30 mg daily had comparable outcomes. Venlafaxine 75 mg daily improved hot flashes without additional side effects from higher dosing. Gabapentin 900 mg daily improved hot flashes more than 300 mg. Paroxetine 10 mg daily had fewer side effects than 20 mg. Among four trials comparing different pharmacologic treatments, venlafaxine alleviated hot flash symptoms faster than clonidine; participants preferred venlafaxine over gabapentin. Five trials compared pharmacologic to non-pharmacologic treatments. Acupuncture had similar efficacy to venlafaxine and gabapentin but may have longer durability after completing treatment and fewer side effects. We could not perform a pooled meta-analysis because outcomes were not reported in comparable formats. Clinical trial data on non-hormonal hot flash treatments provide comparisons of hot flash efficacy and other patient important outcomes to guide clinical management. Clinicians can use the information to help patients select hot flash interventions.

SUBMITTER: Johns C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4838539 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Informing hot flash treatment decisions for breast cancer survivors: a systematic review of randomized trials comparing active interventions.

Johns Claire C Seav Susan M SM Dominick Sally A SA Gorman Jessica R JR Li Hongying H Natarajan Loki L Mao Jun James JJ Irene Su H H

Breast cancer research and treatment 20160326 3

Patient-centered decision making about hot flash treatments often incorporates a balance of efficacy and side effects in addition to patient preference. This systematic review examines randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing at least two non-hormonal hot flash treatments in breast cancer survivors. In July 2015, PubMed, SCOPUS, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were searched for RCTs comparing active, non-hormonal hot flash treatments in female breast cancer survivors. Thirtee ...[more]

PMID: 27015968

Similar Datasets

Project description:Materials and methodsWe conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Chinese Biomedicine Database (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wan Fang, and VIP up to May 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting nonhormonal hot flash treatments for breast cancer survivors were included. Primary outcome measurements were hot flash frequency and hot flash score of posttreatment. The methodological quality of each study was assessed with Cochrane's risk of bias tool.Results16 RCTs involving 2,349 participants were included. The nonhormonal therapies used in the included studies were classified as follows: lifestyle changes, mind-body techniques, dietary/supplements, SSRIs/SNRIs, other medications, and other therapies. Pairwise meta-analysis showed that the general effect of nonhormonal management was statistically more effective than no treatment/placebo/sham in reducing hot flash frequency (SMD = -0.60, 95% CI [-1.13, -0.06]; P=0.03)) and hot flash score (SMD = -0.38, 95% CI [-0.68, -0.08]). For hot flash frequency, results from the NMA showed that there was no statistically significant difference between any two of the nonhormonal treatments. Another NMA result indicated that acupuncture (other therapies) was 16.05 points more effective in reducing hot flash scores than no treatment/waitlist (SMD = -16.05, 95% CI [-30.2, -1.99]). These results were statistically significant. Acupuncture was also ranked the optimal nonhormonal therapy for both hot flash frequency and hot flash score. The safety analysis showed that there were few related adverse events during acupuncture and that drug related adverse reactions could have also occurred in studies using drug interventions.ConclusionsThis network meta-analysis comparing nonhormonal treatments suggested that acupuncture might be more effective in improving hot flashes for breast cancer survivors. A pronounced placebo response was found during hot flash treatments. The evidence of safety for nonhormonal therapies was also insufficient. Therefore, at present, we cannot make confirmative recommendations of nonhormonal hot flash management for breast cancer survivors. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018082008).

Project description:Background: Value of information (VOI) analysis quantifies the value of additional research in reducing decision uncertainty. It addresses adoption and research decisions simultaneously by comparing the expected benefits and costs of research studies. Nevertheless, the application of this approach in practice remains limited. Objectives: To apply VOI analysis in health care interventions to guide adoption decisions, optimize trial design, and prioritize research. Methods: The analysis was from the perspective of Queensland Health, Australia. It included four interventions: clinically indicated catheter replacement, tissue adhesive for securing catheters, negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in caesarean sections, and nutritional support for preventing pressure ulcers. For each intervention, cost-effectiveness analysis was performed, decision uncertainty characterized, and VOI calculated using Monte Carlo simulations. The benefits and costs of additional research were considered together with the costs and consequences of acting now versus waiting for more information. All values are reported in 2014 Australian dollars (AU$). Results: All interventions were cost-effective, but with various levels of decision uncertainty. The current evidence is sufficient to support the adoption of clinically indicated catheter replacement. For the tissue adhesive, an additional study before adoption is worthwhile with a four-arm trial of 220 patients per arm. Additional research on NPWT before adoption is worthwhile with a two-arm trial of 200 patients per arm. Nutritional support should be adopted with a two-arm trial of 1200 patients per arm. Based on the expected net monetary benefits, the studies were ranked as follows: 1) NPWT (AU$1.2 million), 2) tissue adhesive (AU$0.3 milliion), and 3) nutritional support (AU$0.1 million). Conclusions: VOI analysis is a useful and practical approach to inform adoption and research decisions. Efforts should be focused on facilitating its integration into decision making frameworks.

Dataset Information

Informing hot flash treatment decisions for breast cancer survivors: a systematic review of randomized trials comparing active interventions.

Publications

Informing hot flash treatment decisions for breast cancer survivors: a systematic review of randomized trials comparing active interventions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets