Pharmacological interventions for melanoma: Comparative analysis using bayesian meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Yang Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5348360 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Pharmacological interventions for melanoma: Comparative analysis using bayesian meta-analysis.
Yang Yang Y Pei Jiaomiao J Gao Guozhen G Yang Zheng Z Guo Shuzhong S Yue Bo B Qiu Jianhua J
Oncotarget 20161201 49
We conducted a network meta-analysis in order to compare different strategies for managing melanoma patients. Electronic databases were searched for eligible randomized trials that compared different strategies in efficacy and tolerability. Five interventions were associated with a significant improvement in PFS over chemotherapy (all HR < 1): Ipilimumab, Tremelimumab, Nivolumab, Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg and Ipilimumab + Nivolumab. Three interventions exhibited significantly improved OS results ove ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Many pharmacologic agents were investigated for the effect to prevent delirium. We aimed to comprehensively compare the effect of the pharmacological interventions to prevent postoperative delirium. A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized trials was performed using random effects model. PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase were searched on 20 January 2021. Randomized trials comparing the effect of a drug to prevent postoperative delirium with another drug or placebo in adult patients undergoing any kind of surgery were included. Primary outcome was the postoperative incidence of delirium. Eighty-six trials with 26,992 participants were included. Dexmedetomidine, haloperidol, and atypical antipsychotics significantly decreased the incidence of delirium than placebo [dexmedetomidine: odds ratio 0.51, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.40-0.66, moderate quality of evidence (QOE); haloperidol: odds ratio 0.59, 95% CrI 0.37-0.95, moderate QOE; atypical antipsychotics: odds ratio 0.27, 95% CrI 0.14-0.51, moderate QOE]. Dexmedetomidine and atypical antipsychotics had the highest-ranking probabilities to be the best. However, significant heterogeneity regarding diagnostic time window as well as small study effects precludes firm conclusion.
| S-EPMC8184858 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7729523 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Several pharmacological interventions are now under investigation for the treatment of Covid-19, and the evidence is evolving rapidly. Our aim is to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of these drugs. Methods and Findings: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We included 96 RCTs, comprising of 34,501 patients. The network meta-analysis showed in terms of all-cause mortality, when compared to SC or placebo, only corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate (RR 0.90, 95%CI 0.83, 0.97; moderate certainty of evidence). Corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate also when compared to hydroxychloroquine (RR 0.83, 95%CI 0.74, 0.94; moderate certainty of evidence). Remdesivir proved to be better in terms of SAEs when compared to SC or placebo (RR 0.75, 95%CI 0.63, 0.89; high certainty of evidence) and plasma (RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.34, 0.94; high certainty of evidence). The combination of lopinavir and ritonavir proved to reduce SAEs when compared to plasma (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.25, 0.95; high certainty of evidence). Most of the RCTs were at unclear risk of bias (42 of 96), one third were at high risk of bias (34 of 96) and 20 were at low risk of bias. Certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low. Conclusion: At present, corticosteroids reduced all-cause mortality in patients with Covid-19, with a moderate certainty of evidence. Remdesivir appeared to be a safer option than SC or placebo, while plasma was associated with safety concerns. These preliminary evidence-based observations should guide clinical practice until more data are made public.
| S-EPMC8126885 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPoststroke depression (PSD) constitutes an important complication of stroke, leading to great disability as well as increased mortality. Since which treatment for PSD should be preferred are still matters of controversy, we are aiming to compare and rank these pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions.Methods and analysisWe will employ a network meta-analysis to incorporate both direct and indirect evidence from relevant trials. We will search PubMed, the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and the reference lists of relevant articles for randomized controlled trials (RCT) of different PSD treatment strategies. The characteristics of each RCT will be summarized, including the study characteristics, the participant characteristics, the outcome measurements, and adverse events. The risk of bias will be assessed by means of the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was change in Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD) score. Secondary outcomes involve patient response rate (defined as at least a 50% score reduction on HAMD), and remission rate (defined as no longer meeting baseline criteria for depression). Moreover, we will assess the acceptability of treatments according to treatment discontinuation. We will perform pairwise meta-analyses by random effects model and network meta-analysis by Bayesian random effects model.ConclusionFormal ethical approval is not required as primary data will not be collected. Our results will help to reduce the uncertainty about the effectiveness and safety of PSD management, which will encourage further research for other therapeutic options. The review will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.Prospero registration numberCRD42016049049.
| S-EPMC5319512 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction Although several non-pharmacological interventions have been tested in the management of Fibromyalgia (FM), there is little consensus regarding the best options for the treatment of this health condition. The purpose of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to investigate the comparative efficacy and acceptability of non-pharmacological interventions for FM, in order to assist clinical decision making through a ranking of interventions in relation to the most important clinical outcomes in these patients. Methods and analysis We will perform a systematic search to identify randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions endorsed in guidelines and systematic reviews. Information sources searched will include major bibliographic databases without language or date restrictions (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, AMED, PsycINFO and PEDro). Our primary outcomes will be pain intensity, patient-reported quality of life (QoL), and acceptability of treatment will be our secondary outcome. Risk of bias of the included trials will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB2). For each pairwise comparison between the different interventions, we will present mean differences (MDs) for pain intensity and QoL outcomes and Relative Risks (RRs) for acceptability, both with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Initially, standard pairwise meta-analyses will be performed using a DerSimonian-Laird random effects model for all comparisons with at least two trials and then we will perform a frequentist NMA using the methodology of multivariate meta-analysis assuming a common heterogeneity parameter, using the mvmeta command and network suite in STATA. In the NMA, two different types of control group, such as placebo/sham and no intervention/waiting list will be combined as one node called “Control”. The competing interventions will be ranked using the P-score, which is the frequentist analogue of surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for the outcomes of interest at immediate- (intervention duration of up to 2 weeks), short- (over 2 weeks up to 12 weeks) and long-terms (over 12 weeks). The confidence in the results from NMA will be assessed using the Confidence in Network Meta‐analysis (CINeMA) framework. Ethics and dissemination This work synthesises evidence from previously published studies and does not require ethics review or approval. A manuscript describing the findings will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Registration OSF (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/7MS25) and registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42020216374).
| S-EPMC9529083 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:To provide evidence for medical management of chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) in China based on comparisons of all clinical practical interventions using Bayesian network meta-analysis. METHODS:We conducted a systematic literature review by searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Wanfang Database (inception to May 2019) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for CIC in Chinese people. Only RCTs that recruited participants aged over 18 and diagnosed with CIC by the Rome II, III or IV criteria were included. We used three outcomes to examine efficacy. The risk ratio (RR) of the responder rate, based on ≥3 spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs) per week after treatment, was the primary outcome, and the SBM count per week and the Bristol score (BS) were secondary outcomes. In addition, adverse effects (AEs) were also considered a secondary outcome to evaluate safety. We conducted Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects, and the RR or mean difference with its 95% credible interval was calculated. In addition, we ranked all treatments via their cumulative curves (SUCRA) and assessed the quality of evidence according to the GRADE criteria. RESULTS:We included a total of 42 trials (6820 participants) of 20 grouped interventions that included pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments. For the primary outcome, fourteen interventions were significantly better than placebo, and Probiotics plus Mosapride (PB + MP) appeared superior to others (GRADE quality of evidence: Moderate to Low), followed by Prucalopride (PP) (High to Low) and Electroacupuncture (EA) (High to Low). For SBM, Compound sodium bicarbonate suppository (CSBS) appeared to be best, with an SUCRA value of 90% (High to Low). For BS, Lactulose plus Probiotics (LT + PB) was superior to others (Moderate to Low), followed by Polyethylene glycol (PEG) (High to Moderate). Although all interventions appeared non-significant when compared with placebo in terms of adverse effects, Lactulose plus Mosapride showed greater risk than others on ranking probability. CONCLUSIONS:Given the GRADE assessment, PB + MP, PP and EA may be the priory options with moderate certainty in the quality of evidence for the primary outcome. For SBM, a CSBS may be the best option with moderate certainty in the quality of evidence. For BS, PEG may be the priory option with high certainty in the quality of evidence. However, due to a lack of high certainty in the quality of evidence, caution is needed when recommending the interventions. Because of the limitations, an increased number of trials are required for more accurate results.
| S-EPMC6857160 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is the early phase of Alzheimer's disease (AD). The aim of early intervention for MCI is to decrease the rate of conversion from MCI to AD. However, the efficacy of multiple interventions in MCI, and the optimal methods of delivery, remain controversial. We aimed to compare and rank the treatment methods for MCI in AD, in order to find an optimal intervention for MCI and a way to prevent or delay the occurrence of AD. Methods: Pair-wise and network meta-analysis were conducted to integrate the treatment effectiveness through direct and indirect evidence. Four English databases and three Chinese databases were searched for international registers of eligible published, single or double blind, randomized controlled trials up to September 31st 2019. We included nine comparative interventions: pharmacological therapies which incorporated cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEI), ginkgo, nimodipine, and Chinese medicine; non-pharmacological therapies comprising of acupuncture, music therapy, exercise therapy, and nutrition therapy; and a placebo group. The primary outcome was the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score. The secondary outcome was the AD Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog). Results: Twenty-eight trials were eligible, including 6,863 participants. In the direct meta-analysis, as for the Mini-Mental State Examination scale, the ChEIs (MD: -0.38; 95% CI: -0.74, -0.01), Chinese medicine (MD: -0.31; 95% CI: -0.75, 0.13), exercise therapy (MD: -0.50; 95% CI: -0.65, -0.35), music therapy (MD: -1.71; 95% CI: -4.49, 1.07), were statistically more efficient than placebo. For AD Assessment Scalecognitive subscale outcome, ChEIs (MD: 1.20; 95% CI: 0.73, 1.68), Acupuncture (MD: 1.36; 95% CI: 1.28, 1.44), Chinese medicine (MD: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.49, 0.73) and exercise (MD: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.49, 0.73) were better than placebo. In the network meta-analysis, the MMSE outcome ranked music therapy (59%) as the best and Acupuncture (26%) as second. Nutrition and Ginkgo treatment had the lowest rank among all interventions. For ADAS-cog outcome, acupuncture (52) ranked the best. Conclusion: Among the nine treatments studied, music therapy appears to be the best treatment for MCI, followed by acupuncture. Our study provides new insights into potential clinical treatments for MCI due to AD, and may aid the development of guidelines for MCI in AD.
| S-EPMC7289916 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Major depression is a leading cause of disability and has been associated with adverse effects in older persons. While many pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions have been shown to be effective to address major depression in older persons, there has not been a meta-analysis that consolidates all the available interventions and compare the relative benefits of these available interventions. In this study, we aim to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and acceptability of all the known pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for major depression in older persons. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will search Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and references of other review articles for articles related to the keywords of 'randomised trial', 'major depression', 'older persons' and 'treatments'. Two reviewers will independently select the eligible articles. For each included article, the two reviewers will independently extract the data and assess the risk of bias using the Cochrane revised tool for risk of bias. Bayesian network meta-analyses will be conducted to pool the depression scores (based on standardised mean difference) and the all-cause discontinuation across all included studies. The ranking probabilities for all interventions will be estimated and the hierarchy of each intervention will be summarised as surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Meta-regression and sub-group analyses will also be performed to evaluate the effect of study-level covariates. The quality of the evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The results will be disseminated through conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications. They will provide the consolidated evidence to inform clinicians on the best choice of intervention to address major depression in older persons. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42017075756.
| S-EPMC5988061 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsTo perform network meta-analysis for a head-to-head comparison of various interventions used in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on mortality, clinical recovery, time to clinical improvement and the occurrence of serious adverse events.MethodsSystematic search was performed using online databases with suitable MeSH terms including coronavirus, COVID-19, randomized controlled trial, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, tocilizumab, remdesivir, favipiravir, dexamethasone and interferon-β. Data were independently extracted by 2 study investigators and analysed.ResultsOut of 1225 studies screened, 23 were included for qualitative and quantitative analysis. Among the drugs studied, dexamethasone reduces mortality by 10%, with a relative risk of 0.90 (95% confidence interval [0.82-0.97]) and increases clinical recovery by 6% (relative risk 1.06, 95% confidence interval [1.02-1.10]) compared to standard of care. Similarly, remdesivir administered for 10 days increased clinical recovery by 10%, reduced time to clinical improvement by 4 days and lowered the occurrence of serious adverse events by 27% as compared to standard of care.ConclusionIn comparison to standard of care, dexamethasone was found to increase clinical recovery and lower mortality; remdesivir was significantly associated with a lower risk of mortality as compared to tocilizumab and higher clinical recovery and shorter time to clinical improvement as compared to hydroxychloroquine and tocilizumab; remdesivir followed by tocilizumab were found to have lesser occurrence of serious adverse events in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19.
| S-EPMC9111227 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6464661 | biostudies-literature