Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy and safety of licensed treatments for previously treated non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:This systematic review with network meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of currently licensed second-line treatments in patients with late stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS:Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of participants with advanced/metastatic NSCLC receiving second/third line treatments were screened. We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE; EMBASE; Web of Science) from January, 2000 to July, 2017. Two reviewers screened bibliographic records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included studies. The outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and drug-related grade 3-5 adverse-events (AEs). We pooled study-specific hazard ratios (HR; for OS and PFS) and risk ratios (RR; for AEs) using conventional and network-meta-analyses, and ranked interventions by the surface under the cumulative ranking curve. FINDINGS:We included 11 RCTs (7,581 participants) comparing nine drugs. All drugs except for erlotinib significantly improved OS compared to docetaxel. Nivolumab was the highest ranking drug followed by atezolizumab and pembrolizumab. There was no significant difference in OS across these three drugs (HR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.79, 1.21 for nivolumab vs atezolizumab; HR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.77, 1.25 for nivolumab vs pembrolizumab). For PFS, ramucirumab + docetaxel and nivolumab were the drugs with the highest ranking. All interventions except ramucirumab + docetaxel had a reduced risk for severe drug-related AEs vs. docetaxel. Of the drugs with the highest ranking on AEs, nivolumab was significantly safer compared to atezolizumab (RR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.38, 0.79) or pembrolizumab (RR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.34, 0.81). IMPLICATIONS:Nivolumab, pembrolizumab and atezolizumab exhibited superior benefit/risk balance compared to other licensed drugs used late stage NSCLC. Our results indicate that the use of immunotherapies in people diagnosed with non-specific late stage NSCLC should be promoted. The use of docetaxel may now be judged irrelevant as a comparator intervention for approval of new drugs for second line treatment of NSCLC. STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER:PROSPERO CRD42017065928.

SUBMITTER: Armoiry X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6059384 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative efficacy and safety of licensed treatments for previously treated non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Armoiry Xavier X Tsertsvadze Alexander A Connock Martin M Royle Pamela P Melendez-Torres G J GJ Souquet Pierre-Jean PJ Clarke Aileen A

PloS one 20180725 7

<h4>Purpose</h4>This systematic review with network meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of currently licensed second-line treatments in patients with late stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).<h4>Methods</h4>Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of participants with advanced/metastatic NSCLC receiving second/third line treatments were screened. We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE; EMBASE; Web of Science) from January, 2000 to July, 2017. Two reviewers screened bibliographic re ...[more]

PMID: 30044785

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceEvidence regarding real-world effectiveness of therapies for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumors are resistant to platinum-based chemotherapy is lacking.ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of the immune checkpoint inhibitors atezolizumab (programmed cell death ligand 1 inhibitor) and nivolumab (programmed cell death 1 inhibitor) and the chemotherapy drug docetaxel in patients with advanced NSCLC resistant to platinum-based chemotherapy.Design, setting, and participantsThis comparative effectiveness study compared patients aged 18 years or older with advanced NSCLC who initiated atezolizumab, docetaxel, or nivolumab and who had previously been exposed to platinum-based chemotherapy using nationally representative real-world data from more than 280 US cancer clinics. Patients were followed-up from May 2011 to March 2020. Data analysis was performed between April and June 2021. Comparisons of interest were between atezolizumab vs docetaxel and atezolizumab vs nivolumab.ExposuresInitiation of atezolizumab, nivolumab, or docetaxel monotherapy.Main outcome and measuresThe main outcome was overall survival (OS).ResultsA total of 3336 patients (mean [SD] age, 67.1 [9.49] years; 1820 [54.6%] men and 1516 [45.4%] women) were assessed in the main analysis, including 206 patients receiving atezolizumab, 500 receiving docetaxel, and 2630 receiving nivolumab. Patients receiving atezolizumab were older than those treated with docetaxel (mean age [SD], 68.3 [9.4] years vs 65.6 [9.5] years), and were more likely to have been treated in an academic setting (39 patients [18.9%]) than those receiving docetaxel (49 patients [9.8%]) and nivolumab (128 patients [4.9%]). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, atezolizumab was associated with a significantly longer OS compared with docetaxel (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97). No significant difference in OS was observed between atezolizumab and nivolumab (aHR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.89-1.28). These findings were consistent across all patient subgroups tested, and robust to plausible deviations from random missingness for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status in real-world data (eg, the tipping point for loss of a significantly beneficial effect for atezolizumab vs docetaxel was achieved if patients in the docetaxel group missing baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status had a mean performance status of 1.43 higher than expected).Conclusions and relevanceIn this comparative effectiveness study, atezolizumab was superior to docetaxel and matched nivolumab in prolonging OS in a real-world cohort of patients with advanced NSCLC who previously received platinum-based chemotherapy.

Project description:BackgroundCumulative exposure to one or more anticholinergic medications ("anticholinergic burden") is associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes, particularly among older individuals. Mirabegron, an oral selective β3-adrenergic receptor agonist, has demonstrated efficacy in managing the symptoms of overactive bladder without contributing to anticholinergic burden. However, it is not known whether the favorable safety profile of mirabegron relative to antimuscarinics varies with increasing age among a patient population who may have a high anticholinergic burden.ObjectiveThe primary objective of this study was to indirectly compare the safety and efficacy profile of mirabegron relative to antimuscarinics in older adults with overactive bladder.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials that reported safety and efficacy endpoints among patients aged ≥ 65 years. Identified randomized controlled trials were subsequently synthesized via a network meta-analysis. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines in designing, performing, and reporting the literature review were followed. In line with current best practices, the network meta-analysis was conducted using a Bayesian approach and according to the overall general guidance for evidence synthesis developed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision support unit. Estimates of relative safety were assessed via the odds ratio and estimates of relative efficacy were assessed via means and credible intervals.ResultsA total of 3078 abstracts, 300 of which underwent full-text screening, were identified using the search criteria. Twenty articles reporting on 21 randomized controlled trials were eligible for data extraction and synthesis. Following review, five safety and five efficacy endpoints were considered for inclusion in the network meta-analysis. Regarding findings typical of anticholinergic exposure in older adults, mirabegron was not associated with an increased odds of dry mouth (odds ratio 95% credible interval 0.76 [0.26-2.37]) or constipation (1.08 [0.39-3.02]) relative to placebo, whereas antimuscarinics were strongly associated with these events (odds ratio range 3.78-7.85 and 2.12-4.66, respectively). In this older population, mirabegron was associated with a similar odds of experiencing adverse event-related treatment discontinuations relative to placebo (0.99 [0.57-1.70]), while the odds of experiencing an adverse event-related treatment discontinuation for antimuscarinics had a range of 1.14-3.03 (in most cases, the association was mild). No increased odds of experiencing overall treatment-emergent adverse events was observed for mirabegron or antimuscarinics (odds ratio range 1.25-1.55), apart from fesoterodine (2.23 [1.37-3.37]). Finally, a similar treatment effect was observed across all efficacy endpoints between mirabegron and antimuscarinics in this older population.ConclusionsThis study indicates that the safety and efficacy profile of mirabegron remains favorable compared with antimuscarinics among older adults. This includes safety outcomes typically associated with anticholinergic burden, which were less frequently observed in patients treated with mirabegron.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To compare the efficacy and safety of approved treatments for macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). DESIGN:Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of approved treatments for macular oedema secondary to BRVO were identified from an updated systematic review. SETTING:A Bayesian network meta-analysis of RCTs of treatments for macular oedema secondary to BRVO. INTERVENTIONS:Ranibizumab 0.5 mg pro re nata, aflibercept 2 mg monthly (2q4), dexamethasone 0.7 mg implant, laser photocoagulation, ranibizumab+laser, or sham intervention. Bevacizumab and triamcinolone were excluded. OUTCOME MEASURES:Efficacy outcomes were mean change in best corrected visual acuity (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study scale) and the percentage of patients gaining ? 15 letters. Safety outcome was the percentage of patients with increased intraocular pressure (IOP)/ocular hypertension (OH). RESULTS:8 RCTs were identified for inclusion with 1743 adult patients. The probability of being the most efficacious treatment at month 6 or 12 based on letters gained was 54% for ranibizumab monotherapy, 30% for aflibercept, 16% for ranibizumab plus laser (adjunctive or prompt), and 0% for dexamethasone implant, laser or sham. The probability of being the most efficacious treatment for patients gaining ? 15 letters was 39% for aflibercept, 35% for ranibizumab monotherapy, 24% for ranibizumab plus laser, 2% for dexamethasone implant, and less than 1% for laser or sham. There was no statistical difference between ranibizumab monotherapy and aflibercept for letters gained (+1.4 letters for ranibizumab vs aflibercept with 95% credible interval (CrI) of -5.2 to +8.5 letters) or the OR for gaining ? 15 letters: 1.06 (95% CrI 0.16 to 8.94)). Dexamethasone implant was associated with significantly higher IOP/OH than antivascular endothelial growth factor agents (OR 13.1 (95% CrI 1.7 to 116.9)). CONCLUSIONS:There was no statistically significant difference between ranibizumab and aflibercept.

Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy and safety of licensed treatments for previously treated non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Publications

Comparative efficacy and safety of licensed treatments for previously treated non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets