Dataset Information

Aprepitant in pediatric patients using moderate and highly emetogenic protocols: a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: AIMS:To review the efficacy and safety of aprepitant in combination with ondansetron and dexamethasone (triple therapy) in children and adolescents on moderate to highly emetogenic chemotherapy. METHODS:Medline, Embase, Scielo, Lilacs, Cochrane and congress abstracts published until September 2016 were used as data sources. Two reviewers independently selected manuscripts and extracted data. A third reviewer solved discrepancies in study selection and data extraction. The primary outcome was overall complete response (no vomiting from 0 to 120 h). Secondary outcomes were: response in acute phase, delayed phase and reported toxicities. Each study was considered a unit of analysis. Summarized relative risks were recalculated based on reported data. All meta-analyses used a random-effects model and heterogeneity was reported using the I2 method. RESULTS:From 1004 studies, we screened 288 titles and abstracts and included three trials for data extraction. The population comprised 451 patients. Most patients were males, ranging from 6 months to 19 years of age, and weighing from 6 to 134 kg. Bone cancer was the most incident (?50%) neoplasm, followed by rhabdomyosarcoma and Hodgkin's lymphoma. Triple therapy was associated with a reduced risk of developing chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) (RR = 0.48; 95% CI 0.34-0.67). There were no differences in incidence of febrile neutropenia between groups (RR = 1.02; 95% CI 0.66-1.58). CONCLUSIONS:Triple therapy decreased CIV risk, without increasing the occurrence of febrile neutropenia. However, this review could not address which subpopulations would most benefit from using this strategy. Future studies should focus on assessing risk factors for nausea and vomiting, as many patients did not achieve a complete antiemetic response.

SUBMITTER: Okumura LM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5401966 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Aprepitant in pediatric patients using moderate and highly emetogenic protocols: a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.

Okumura Lucas Miyake LM D'Athayde Rodrigues Fernanda F Ferreira Maria Angelica Pires MAP Moreira Leila Beltrami LB

British journal of clinical pharmacology 20170112 5

<h4>Aims</h4>To review the efficacy and safety of aprepitant in combination with ondansetron and dexamethasone (triple therapy) in children and adolescents on moderate to highly emetogenic chemotherapy.<h4>Methods</h4>Medline, Embase, Scielo, Lilacs, Cochrane and congress abstracts published until September 2016 were used as data sources. Two reviewers independently selected manuscripts and extracted data. A third reviewer solved discrepancies in study selection and data extraction. The primary ...[more]

PMID: 27868231

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the planning of subgroup analyses in protocols of randomised controlled trials and the agreement with corresponding full journal publications.DesignCohort of protocols of randomised controlled trial and subsequent full journal publications.SettingSix research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada.Data sources894 protocols of randomised controlled trial involving patients approved by participating research ethics committees between 2000 and 2003 and 515 subsequent full journal publications.ResultsOf 894 protocols of randomised controlled trials, 252 (28.2%) included one or more planned subgroup analyses. Of those, 17 (6.7%) provided a clear hypothesis for at least one subgroup analysis, 10 (4.0%) anticipated the direction of a subgroup effect, and 87 (34.5%) planned a statistical test for interaction. Industry sponsored trials more often planned subgroup analyses compared with investigator sponsored trials (195/551 (35.4%) v 57/343 (16.6%), P<0.001). Of 515 identified journal publications, 246 (47.8%) reported at least one subgroup analysis. In 81 (32.9%) of the 246 publications reporting subgroup analyses, authors stated that subgroup analyses were prespecified, but this was not supported by 28 (34.6%) corresponding protocols. In 86 publications, authors claimed a subgroup effect, but only 36 (41.9%) corresponding protocols reported a planned subgroup analysis.ConclusionsSubgroup analyses are insufficiently described in the protocols of randomised controlled trials submitted to research ethics committees, and investigators rarely specify the anticipated direction of subgroup effects. More than one third of statements in publications of randomised controlled trials about subgroup prespecification had no documentation in the corresponding protocols. Definitive judgments regarding credibility of claimed subgroup effects are not possible without access to protocols and analysis plans of randomised controlled trials.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Randomised controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard to provide unbiased data. However, when patients have a treatment preference, randomisation may influence participation and outcomes (eg, external and internal validity). The aim of this study was to assess the influence of patients' preference in RCTs by analysing partially randomised patient preference trials (RPPT); an RCT and preference cohort combined. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:RPPTs published between January 2005 and October 2018 reporting on allocation of patients to randomised and preference cohorts were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two independent reviewers extracted data. The main outcomes were the difference in external validity (participation and baseline characteristics) and internal validity (lost to follow-up, crossover and the primary outcome) between the randomised and the preference cohort within each RPPT, compared in a meta-regression using a Wald test. Risk of bias was not assessed, as no quality assessment for RPPTs has yet been developed. RESULTS:In total, 117 of 3734 identified articles met screening criteria and 44 were eligible (24 873 patients). The participation rate in RPPTs was >95% in 14 trials (range: 48%-100%) and the randomisation refusal rate was >50% in 26 trials (range: 19%-99%). Higher education, female, older age, race and prior experience with one treatment arm were characteristics of patients declining randomisation. The lost to follow-up and cross-over rate were significantly higher in the randomised cohort compared with the preference cohort. Following the meta-analysis, the reported primary outcomes were comparable between both cohorts of the RPPTs, mean difference 0.093 (95% CI -0.178 to 0.364, p=0.502). CONCLUSIONS:Patients' preference led to a substantial proportion of a specific patient group refusing randomisation, while it did not influence the primary outcome within an RPPT. Therefore, RPPTs could increase external validity without compromising the internal validity compared with RCTs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019094438.

Project description:BackgroundDespite significant progress in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) by using dexamethasone combined with palonosetron for patients who received moderate-emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), some of these patients still suffer from CINV. We evaluated whether aprepitant combined with palonosetron can improve the efficacy in the prevention of CINV in patients receiving MEC.MethodsThis was a single-centre, open-label, phase III, randomized controlled trial, which was done at the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University of China. The registered patients planned to receive mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and 5-fluorouracil) but had not received any chemotherapy previously. The patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the aprepitant group (aprepitant 125 mg orally on day 1, 80 mg on day 2-3) and the dexamethasone group (dexamethasone 10 mg intravenously on day 1, 5 mg on days 2 and 3), both groups with palonosetron 0.25 mg intravenously on day 1. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved a complete response (CR), defined as the absence of vomiting and no use of rescue medications in the overall phase (0-120 h). The primary outcome and safety were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which excluded all patients who used estazolam within 24 h before registration and those who refused to keep a diary documenting the severity of nausea, frequency of vomiting, and the use of rescue therapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02909478.FindingsBetween Sep 1, 2017, and Oct 23, 2019, 320 patients were enrolled, and 315 patients were evaluated. The proportion of patients who achieved CR was significantly higher with aprepitant than that noted with dexamethasone in the overall phase (88.8% vs. 74.2%; P = 0.0010; rate difference, RD 15%, 95% CI, 6% to 23%) and in the delayed phase (25-120 h), 90.6% vs. 75.5%, (P < 0.0001; RD 15%, 95%CI, 7% to 23%). No significant difference of CR rate was observed in the acute phase (0-24 h), 93.8% vs. 93.5%, (P = 0.94; RD 0%, 95% CI, -5% to 6%)). In the overall phase, the incidence of insomnia (P < 0.0010), dyspepsia (P = 0.038), and flushing (P = 0.0010) reported by the patients was significantly higher in the dexamethasone group than that in the aprepitant group.InterpretationAprepitant combined with palonosetron is superior to dexamethasone combined with palonosetron in patients who received the MEC regimen mFOLFOX6 in terms of preventing CINV.FundingThe National Key R&D Program of China (2019YFC1316000) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81974369).

Project description:BackgroundAlzheimer's disease (AD) is a globally prevalent neurodegenerative condition, clinically characterized by progressive memory loss and gradual impairment of cognitive functions. Bapineuzumab is a fully humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to neurotoxic amyloid proteins in the brain, enhancing their clearance. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of bapineuzumab in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease.MethodsWe performed a web-based literature search of PubMed, Ovid, EBSCO, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and web of science using the relevant keywords. Data were extracted from eligible records and pooled as mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) values with their 95% confidence interval (CI), using Review Manager software (version 5.3 for windows). Heterogeneity was measured by Chi-square and I-square tests.ResultThe pooled effect estimate from six randomized clinical trials (n = 2380) showed that bapineuzumab significantly reduced the cerebrospinal fluid concentration of phosphorylated tau proteins (Standardized MD = -5.53, 95% CI [-8.29, -2.76]). However, the bapineuzumab group was not superior to the placebo group in terms of change from baseline in Alzheimer's disease assessment scale (ADAS)-Cog11 (MD = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.99]), disability assessment for dementia (DAD) scale (MD = 1.35, 95% CI [-1.74, 4.43]), and mini-mental state examination (MMSE) scores (MD = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.47]). Regarding safety, bapineuzumab increased the risk of serious treatment-emergent adverse events (RR = 1.18, 95% CI [1.02, 1.37]) and cerebral vasogenic edema (RR = 40.88, 95% CI [11.94, 135.95]). All bapineuzumab doses (0.15, 0.5, 1, and 2 mg/kg) were similar to placebo in terms of change from baseline in ADAS-cog11, DAD, and MMSE scores, except for the 0.15 mg/kg dose, which caused a significant worsening on the ADAS-cog11 scale (MD = 5.6, 95% CI [0.22, 10.98]).ConclusionsConsidering the lack of clinical efficacy, combined with the significant association with serious adverse events, bapineuzumab should not be used to treat patients with mild to moderate AD. Future studies should investigate the effect of combining bapineuzumab with other therapeutic strategies and reevaluate the efficacy of targeting amyloid β proteins in AD therapy.

Dataset Information

Aprepitant in pediatric patients using moderate and highly emetogenic protocols: a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.

Publications

Aprepitant in pediatric patients using moderate and highly emetogenic protocols: a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets