Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy and safety of antibody induction therapy for the treatment of kidney: a network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antibody induction therapies in kidney transplantation. Systematic literature searches were undertaken using MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library database from 1980 to 2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing three antibody induction therapies (alemtuzumab, interleukin-2 receptor antibodies and antithymocyte globulin) between each other were identified. Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to combine both the direct and indirect evidence on treatment efficacy and its safety. Antibody induction therapy studies, comprising of 18 RCTs (3444 kidney transplant recipients), were included. Overall, alemtuzumab treatment was superior to the ATG group (OR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.32 to 0.71) and IL-2RAs group (OR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.25 to 0.52) for reducing the 1-year acute rejection in kidney transplant recipients. Although alemtuzumab treatment was nearly same with ATG group and IL-2RAs group in improving patient survival and renal function, it can reduce the adverse effects of cytomegalovirus infection more efficiently than ATG group (OR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.32 to 0.95) and IL-2RAs group (OR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.61 to 1.73). Alemtuzumab was not associated with increased other adverse effects. Alemtuzumab treatment is safe and effective for kidney transplant recipients. No serious adverse effects were observed in trials or in general populations.

SUBMITTER: Shao M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5630424 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative efficacy and safety of antibody induction therapy for the treatment of kidney: a network meta-analysis.

Shao Mingjie M Tian Tingting T Zhu Xinyan X Ming Yingzi Y Iwakiri Yasuko Y Ye Shaojun S Ye Qifa Q

Oncotarget 20170802 39

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antibody induction therapies in kidney transplantation. Systematic literature searches were undertaken using MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library database from 1980 to 2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing three antibody induction therapies (alemtuzumab, interleukin-2 receptor antibodies and antithymocyte globulin) between each other were identified. Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to combine both the direct and indirect evidence on t ...[more]

PMID: 29029524

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAntihypertensive treatment mitigates the progression of chronic kidney disease. Here, we comparatively assessed the effects of antihypertensive agents in normotensive and hypertensive diabetic patients with microalbuminuric kidney disease.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral antihypertensive agents in adult diabetic patients with microalbuminuria. The primary efficacy outcome was reduction in albuminuria, and the primary safety outcomes were dry cough, presyncope, and edema. Random-effects pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed to produce outcome estimates for all RCTs, only hypertensive RCTs, or only normotensive RCTs. Surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probability rankings were calculated for all outcomes. Sensitivity analyses on type 2 diabetes status, age, or follow-up duration were also performed.ResultsA total of 38 RCTs were included in the meta-analyses. The angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor-calcium channel blocker (ACEI-CCB) combination therapy of captopril+diltiazem was most efficacious in reducing albuminuria irrespective of blood pressure status. However, the ACEI-angiotensin receptor blocker (ACEI-ARB) combination therapy of trandolapril+candesartan was the most efficacious in reducing albuminuria for normotensive patients, while the ACEI-CCB combination therapy of fosinopril+amlodipine was the most efficacious in reducing albuminuria for hypertensive patients. The foregoing combination therapies displayed inferior safety profiles relative to ACEI monotherapy with respect to dry cough, presyncope, and edema. With respect to type 2 diabetic patients with microalbuminuria, the Chinese herbal medicine Tangshen formula followed by the ACEI ramipril were the most efficacious in reducing albuminuria.ConclusionsTrandolapril+candesartan appears to be the most efficacious intervention for reducing albuminuria for normotensive patients, while fosinopril+amlodipine appears to be the most efficacious intervention for reducing albuminuria for hypertensive patients. For practitioners opting for monotherapy, our SUCRA analysis supports the use of trandolapril and fosinopril in normotensive and hypertensive adult diabetic patients with microalbuminuria, respectively.

Project description:BackgroundIn recent years, there has been rapid development in systemic therapeutic agents for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. However, most treatment modalities lack head-to-head comparisons, and the distinctions in their efficacy and safety have yet to be elucidated. Consequently, the accurate selection of a treatment regimen poses a significant challenge for clinicians.MethodsThis study incorporated twenty-three randomized controlled trials, encompassing fifteen first-line and eight second-line treatments, and involving a total of 14,703 patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Results: In the context of first-line treatment, it was observed that the combination of a PD-1 inhibitor with bevacizumab (1/15) significantly extended overall survival in patients with advanced HCC. Furthermore, PD-1 inhibitors combined with TKIs (1/15) and PD-1 inhibitors combined with bevacizumab (2/15) exhibited enhanced efficacy in reducing the risk of progression-free survival events. In second-line therapy, the network meta-analysis revealed that all investigational agents prolonged progression-free survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma when compared to placebo. Cabozantinib ranked first (1/7) in this regard. However, this translated into an overall survival benefit only for cabozantinib, regorafenib, ramucirumab, and pembrolizumab, with regorafenib achieving the highest ranking (1/7).ConclusionIn the treatment of advanced HCC, the immune checkpoint inhibitor combined with bevacizumab regimen and the immune checkpoint inhibitor combined with TKI regimen stand out as the two most effective first-line treatment options. It is noteworthy that, for patients with absolute contraindications to VEGF inhibitors, dual immunotherapy is the preferred choice. For second-line treatment, regorafenib and cabozantinib are identified as the two most effective options.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42023440173.

Project description:BackgroundDementia is a clinical syndrome commonly seen in the elderly individuals. With the prevalence of dementia, the incidence of neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia patients is increasing annually. Agitation, as one of the neuropsychiatric symptoms, has a serious impact on the quality of life of patients with dementia. Several antidepressant drugs have been shown to be effective for treating agitated behavior symptoms in patients with dementia, but there are no direct comparisons among those drugs. Therefore, we carried out a network meta-analysis (NMA) to examine the efficacy and safety of those antidepressant drugs.MethodsWe searched eight databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, Wanfang Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Database and China biomedical literature service) from their inception to 6 November 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the efficacy and safety of antidepressant drugs in treating agitated behavior symptoms in patients with dementia were included in our analysis. The quality assessment was carried out by two researchers individually and the analysis was based on the frequency method.ResultsTwelve articles with 1,146 participants were included in our analysis. Based on the outcome of the agitation score, treatment with citalopram (standardized mean difference, SMD = -0.44, 95% confidence interval, 95% CI = -0.72 to -0.16) showed significant benefits over the placebo group. Treatment with trazodone (odds ratio, OR = 4.58, 95% CI = 1.12-18.69) was associated with a higher risk of total adverse events compared with a placebo treatment.ConclusionAmong the antidepressant drugs included in this study, treatment with citalopram was probably the only optimal intervention, when considering the improvement from baseline to the end of the intervention, and there was not a statistically significant difference in safety when compared with a placebo treatment.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails, identifier: PROSPERO, CRD42022320932.

Project description:This meta-analysis investigated the comparative efficacy and safety of PARP inhibitor monotherapy as maintenance treatment in platinum sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC). Electronic databases were systematically searched for relevant RCTs. The primary endpoint was PFS. The results were stratified based on three categories: BRCA mutated patients, HRD patients, and overall population. The secondary outcome were discontinuations due to adverse events and grade 3 or 4 adverse events in maintenance phase. Five eligible RCTs were included in the network meta-analysis. For patients with BRCA mutated ovarian cancer, olaparib-throughout (HR = 0.21 with 95% CrI: 0.081-0.55), rucaparib (HR = 0.23 with 95% CrI: 0.16-0.34), olaparib (HR = 0.27 with 95% CrI: 0.20-0.35), and niraparib (HR = 0.26 with 95% CrI: 0.17-0.41) were all highly effective in comparison with placebo at improving PFS. For HRD patients, both rucaparib (HR = 0.32 with 95% CrI: 0.24-0.42) and niraparib (HR = 0.38 with 95% CrI: 0.24-0.60) were all highly effective in comparison with placebo at improving PFS. For the overall population, olaparib-throughout (HR = 0.51 with 95% CrI: 0.34-0.76), rucaparib (HR = 0.37 with 95% CrI: 0.30-0.45), olaparib (HR = 0.35 with 95% CrI: 0.25-0.49), and niraparib (HR = 0.38 with 95% CrI: 0.30-0.48) were all highly effective in comparison with placebo at improving PFS. Regarding grade 3 or 4 adverse events, the incidence of grade 3 or 4 toxicity reactions to rucaparib and niraparib were significantly higher than in the olaparib group. In terms of discontinuations due to adverse events, the treatment discontinuations were not significantly different between the three drugs. In summary, all the included maintenance treatment regimens are effective regardless of BRCA mutational status, and no statistically significant differences between rucaparib, niraparib and Olaparib in terms of PFS. In terms of safety profile, the three drugs present manageable adverse events. Clinicians should consider potential adverse events related to each of these interventions in clinical practice, and the adverse events are generally manageable.

Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy and safety of antibody induction therapy for the treatment of kidney: a network meta-analysis.

Publications

Comparative efficacy and safety of antibody induction therapy for the treatment of kidney: a network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets