Dataset Information

A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis to Evaluate the Comparative Efficacy of Interventions for Unfit Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Rituximab plus fludarabine and cyclophosphamide (RFC) is the standard of care for fit patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL); however, its use is limited in 'unfit' (co-morbid and/or full-dose F-ineligible) patients due to its toxicity profile. We conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) to determine the relative efficacy of commercially available interventions for the first-line treatment of unfit CLL patients.

Methods

For inclusion in the NMA, studies had to be linked via common treatment comparators, report progression-free survival (PFS), and/or overall survival (OS), and meet at least one of the five inclusion criteria: median cumulative illness score >6, median creatinine clearance ≤70 mL/min, existing co-morbidities, median age ≥70 years, and no full-dose F in the comparator arm. A manual review, validated by external experts, of all studies that met at least one of these criteria was also performed to confirm that they evaluated first-line therapeutic options for unfit patients with CLL.

Results

In unfit patients, the main NMA (five studies for PFS and four for OS) demonstrated clear preference in terms of PFS for obinutuzumab + chlorambucil (G-Clb) versus rituximab + chlorambucil (R-Clb), ofatumumab + chlorambucil (O-Clb), fludarabine and chlorambucil (median hazard ratios [HRs] 0.43, 0.33, 0.20, and 0.19, respectively), and a trend for better efficacy versus rituximab + bendamustine (R-Benda) and RFC-Lite (median HR 0.81 and 0.88, respectively). OS results were generally consistent with PFS data, (median HR 0.48, 0.53, and 0.81, respectively) for G-Clb versus Clb, O-Clb, and R-Clb 0.35 and 0.81 versus F and R-Benda, respectively); however, the OS findings were associated with higher uncertainty. Treatment ranking reflected improved PFS and OS with G-Clb over other treatment strategies (median rank of one for both endpoints).

Conclusion

G-Clb is likely to show superior efficacy to other treatment options selected in our NMA for unfit treatment-naïve patients with CLL.

Funding

F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.

SUBMITTER: Stadler N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5055565 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is incurable through conventional chemoimmunotherapy regimens. Despite durable responses to front-line therapy and sustained remission rates in patients with CLL, a majority of patients eventually relapse in 5 years of initial treatment. The depth of the response may affect the length of response. Maintenance therapies were aimed to deep remissions and extend the period of disease quiescence. Lenalidomide, rituximab and ofatumumab had demonstrated some efficacy as a maintenance therapy compared to no intervention for CLL patients. The relative effect on disease control and safety between different maintenance therapies were unclear. METHODS:We performed a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis to evaluate relative effect on disease control and safety of current available maintenance therapies. We searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane database up to March 6, 2019. Relevant reference of review article and conference abstract including European Hematology Association Annual Meeting (EHA 2018), American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting (ASH 2018) and American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting (ASCO 2018) were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) involving current available maintenance therapy including "Lenalidomide", "Rituximab", "Ofatumumab", "Ibrutinib", "Idelalisib", "Venetoclax"and "Obinutuzumab"were eligible. Outcomes of interest included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and serious adverse events (SAE) in CLL patients received subsequent maintenance therapy. Two authors CHL and CL) independently assessed eligibility for all identified citations and extracted data from the original trial reports. The selected studies' risk of bias was assessed following the guidelines of Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. RESULTS:In total, six phase III RCTs with total 1,615 CLL patients were identified. Maintenance therapy using lenalidomide, rituximab, and ofatumumab demonstrated a statistically significant effect in prolongation of progression-free survival (HR:0.37, 95% CI: 0.27-0.50 of lenalidomide; HR:0.50, 95% CI: 0.38-0.66 of rituximab; HR:0.52, 95% CI:0.41-0.66 of ofatumumab, separately) compared with no intervention; however, for overall survival, the effect of maintenance therapy showed no significant difference versus no intervention (HR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.70-1.14). Lenalidomide showed the best efficacy for PFS (HR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.27-0.50, Probability of being best treatment: 96%). CONCLUSIONS:Our network meta-analysis provided an integrated overview of relative efficacy and safety of different maintenance therapies in CLL. All maintenance therapies were effective in reducing the risk of disease progression versus no intervention. Based on current best evidence, maintenance therapy with lenalidomide is the most efficacious option.

Project description:BackgroundRecent years have witnessed the rapid evolution of therapies in chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CP-CML). To assess the efficacy and tolerability of all reported front-line treatments for patients with newly diagnosed CML, a multiple-treatments meta-analysis was performed, which accounted for both direct and indirect comparisons among those treatments.MethodsPrimary outcomes were the percentage of patients achieving major molecular response (MMR) and complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) within 12 months. Secondary outcomes included the percentage of progression to accelerated phase (AP), serious adverse effects (AEs), overall discontinuation and discontinuation for drug-related AEs. Direct pairwise meta-analysis and indirect multi-comparison meta-analysis among those treatments in each outcome were both conducted. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was calculated for all treatments in each outcome. Cluster analysis demonstrated the division of treatments into distinct groupings according to efficacy and tolerability profiles.ResultsA total of 21 randomized controlled trials (RCTs, including 10,187 patients) comparing 15 different interventions for CP-CML patients were included in this study. SUCRA analysis suggested that all tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are highly effective in newly diagnosed CP-CML when compared to traditional drugs. Newer TKIs and higher-dose imatinib generally resulted in faster cytogenetic and molecular responses when compared with standard-dose imatinib and traditional drugs. Furthermore, traditional drugs, higher-dose imatinib and newer TKIs demonstrated lower acceptability than standard-dose imatinib. One cluster of interventions, which included nilotinib (300/400 mg BID), dasatinib (100 mg QD) and radotinib (300 mg BID), demonstrated higher efficacy and tolerability than other treatments.ConclusionsNilotinib (300/400 mg BID), dasatinib (100 mg QD) and radotinib (300 mg BID) prove to be the most recommended front-line treatments of the greatest efficacy and tolerability for CP-CML patients. High-dose therapies are recommended only for patients in accelerated phase/blast phase or with suboptimal CML-CP response, and management of adverse events should be carried out to avoid compromising the clinical efficacy.

Project description:Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a B-cell malignancy characterized by a wide range of tumor-induced alterations, which affect both the innate and adaptive arms of the immune response, and accumulate during disease progression. In recent years, the development of targeted therapies, such as the B-cell receptor signaling inhibitors and the Bcl-2 protein inhibitor venetoclax, has dramatically changed the treatment landscape of CLL. Despite their remarkable anti-tumor activity, targeted agents have some limitations, which include the development of drug resistance mechanisms and the inferior efficacy observed in high-risk patients. Therefore, additional treatments are necessary to obtain deeper responses and overcome drug resistance. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), which exploits immune-mediated graft-versus-leukemia effect to eradicate tumor cells, currently represents the only potentially curative therapeutic option for CLL patients. However, due to its potential toxicities, HSCT can be offered only to a restricted number of younger and fit patients. The growing understanding of the complex interplay between tumor cells and the immune system, which is responsible for immune escape mechanisms and tumor progression, has paved the way for the development of novel immune-based strategies. Despite promising preclinical observations, results from pilot clinical studies exploring the safety and efficacy of novel immune-based therapies have been sometimes suboptimal in terms of long-term tumor control. Therefore, further advances to improve their efficacy are needed. In this context, possible approaches include an earlier timing of immunotherapy within the treatment sequencing, as well as the possibility to improve the efficacy of immunotherapeutic agents by administering them in combination with other anti-tumor drugs. In this review, we will provide a comprehensive overview of main immune defects affecting patients with CLL, also describing the complex networks leading to immune evasion and tumor progression. From the therapeutic standpoint, we will go through the evolution of immune-based therapeutic approaches over time, including i) agents with broad immunomodulatory effects, such as immunomodulatory drugs, ii) currently approved and next-generation monoclonal antibodies, and iii) immunotherapeutic strategies aiming at activating or administering immune effector cells specifically targeting leukemic cells (e.g. bi-or tri-specific antibodies, tumor vaccines, chimeric antigen receptor T cells, and checkpoint inhibitors).

Project description:BackgroundPrevious meta-analyses comparing the efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions for depression were clouded by a limited number of within-study treatment comparisons. This study used network meta-analysis, a novel methodological approach that integrates direct and indirect evidence from randomised controlled studies, to re-examine the comparative efficacy of seven psychotherapeutic interventions for adult depression.Methods and findingsWe conducted systematic literature searches in PubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase up to November 2012, and identified additional studies through earlier meta-analyses and the references of included studies. We identified 198 studies, including 15,118 adult patients with depression, and coded moderator variables. Each of the seven psychotherapeutic interventions was superior to a waitlist control condition with moderate to large effects (range d?=?-0.62 to d?=?-0.92). Relative effects of different psychotherapeutic interventions on depressive symptoms were absent to small (range d?=?0.01 to d?=?-0.30). Interpersonal therapy was significantly more effective than supportive therapy (d?=?-0.30, 95% credibility interval [CrI] [-0.54 to -0.05]). Moderator analysis showed that patient characteristics had no influence on treatment effects, but identified aspects of study quality and sample size as effect modifiers. Smaller effects were found in studies of at least moderate (?d?=?0.29 [-0.01 to 0.58]; p?=?0.063) and large size (?d?=?0.33 [0.08 to 0.61]; p?=?0.012) and those that had adequate outcome assessment (?d?=?0.38 [-0.06 to 0.87]; p?=?0.100). Stepwise restriction of analyses by sample size showed robust effects for cognitive-behavioural therapy, interpersonal therapy, and problem-solving therapy (all d>0.46) compared to waitlist. Empirical evidence from large studies was unavailable or limited for other psychotherapeutic interventions.ConclusionsOverall our results are consistent with the notion that different psychotherapeutic interventions for depression have comparable benefits. However, the robustness of the evidence varies considerably between different psychotherapeutic treatments.

Project description:Acne has several effects on physical symptoms, but the main impacts are on the quality of life, which can be improved by treatment. There are several acne treatments but less evidence comparing their relative efficacy. Thus, we assessed the comparative efficacy of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for acne. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to April 2019, to include randomized controlled trials for acne that compared topical antibiotics (TA), benzoyl peroxide (BPO), topical retinoids (TR), oral antibiotics (OA), lasers, light devices including LED device (LED), photodynamic therapy (PDT), and intense pulsed light, chemical peels (CP), miscellaneous therapies or complementary and alternative medicine (MTCAM), or their combinations. We performed Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects for all treatments compared with placebo and each other. Mean differences (MDs) of lesions count and risk ratios of adverse events with their 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated, and all interventions were ranked by the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) values. Additional frequentist additive network meta-analysis was performed to detect the robustness of results and potential interaction effects. Sensitivity analyses were carried out with different priors, and metaregression was to adjust for nine potential effect modifiers. In the result, seventy-three randomized controlled trials (27,745 patients with mild to moderate acne), comparing 30 grouped intervention categories, were included with low to moderate risk of bias. For adverse effects, OA had more risk in combination treatment with others. For noninflammatory lesions reduction, seventeen interventions had significant differences comparing with placebo and three interventions (TR+BPO: MD = -21.89, 95%CrI [-28.97, -14.76]; TR+BPO+MTCAM: -22.48 [-34.13, -10.70]; TA+BPO+CP: -20.63 [-33.97, -7.13]) were superior to others with 94, 94, and 91% SUCRA values, respectively. For inflammatory lesions reduction, nineteen interventions were significantly better than placebo, and three interventions (TR+BPO: MD = -12.13, 95%CrI [-18.41, -5.80]; TR+BPO+MTCAM: -13.21 [-.39, -3.04]; LED: -11.30 [-18.34, -4.42]) were superior to others (SUCRA: 81, 81, and 77%, respectively). In summary of noninflammatory and inflammatory lesions results, TR+BPO and TA+BPO were the best options compared to others. The frequentist model showed similar results as above. In summary, current evidence supports the suggestion that TR+BPO and TA+BPO are the best options for mild to moderate acne. LED is another option for inflammatory lesions when drug resistance occurs. All the combinations involved with OA showed more risk of adverse events than others. However, the evidence of this study should be cautiously used due to the limitations.