Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Background:Thrombosis is a common complication in patients with cancer. Whether thromboprophylaxis could benefit patients with cancer is unclear. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer undergoing surgery or chemotherapy. Methods:We searched the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, EBSCOhost, and Web of Science for studies published before May 2018 to investigate whether thromboprophylaxis measures were more effective than a placebo in patients with cancer. Results:In total, 33 trials with 11,942 patients with cancer were identified. In patients with cancer undergoing surgery, the administration of thromboprophylaxis was associated with decreasing trends in venous thromboembolism (VTE) [relative risk (RR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32-0.81] and DVT (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33-0.87). In patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, the administration of thromboprophylaxis reduced the incidences of VTE, DVT, and pulmonary embolism compared with no thromboprophylaxis (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40-0.73; RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31-0.73; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32-0.81, respectively). The pooled results regarding major bleeding showed no significant difference between prophylaxis and no prophylaxis in either the surgical or the chemotherapy groups (RR 2.35, 95% CI 0.74-7.52, p?=?0.1482, I2?=?0%; RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.93-1.83, p?=?0.1274, I2?=?0%, respectively). Conclusion:Thromboprophylaxis did not increase major bleeding events or the incidence of thrombocytopenia. All-cause mortality was not significantly different between those who received thromboprophylaxis and those who did not. This meta-analysis provides evidence that thromboprophylaxis can reduce the number of VTE and DVT events, with no apparent increase in the incidence of major bleeding in patients with cancer.

SUBMITTER: Liu M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7081475 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Liu Miao M Wang Guiyue G Li Yuhang Y Wang Hongliang H Liu Haitao H Guo Nana N Han Ci C Peng Yahui Y Yang Mengyuan M Liu Yansong Y Ma Xiaohui X Yu Kaijiang K Wang Changsong C

Therapeutic advances in medical oncology 20200318

<h4>Background</h4>Thrombosis is a common complication in patients with cancer. Whether thromboprophylaxis could benefit patients with cancer is unclear. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer undergoing surgery or chemotherapy.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, EBSCOhost, and Web of Science for studies published before May 2018 to investigate whether thromboprophylaxis measures were ...[more]

PMID: 32215058

Similar Datasets

Project description:Vancomycin and teicoplanin are the glycopeptides currently in use for the treatment of infections caused by invasive beta-lactam-resistant gram-positive organisms. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that have compared vancomycin and teicoplanin administered systemically for the treatment of suspected or proven infections. A comprehensive search of trials without year, language, or publication status restrictions was performed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled by using the fixed-effect model (RRs of >1 favor vancomycin). Twenty-four trials were included. All-cause mortality was similar overall (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.21), and there was no significant heterogeneity. In trials that used adequate allocation concealment, the results favored teicoplanin (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.06), while in trials with unknown methods or inadequate concealment, the results favored vancomycin (RR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.27 to 10.30). The latter trials might have recruited more severely ill patients. No other variable affected the RRs for mortality, including the assessment of glycopeptides administered empirically or for proven infections, neutropenia, the participant's age, and drug dosing. There were no significant differences between teicoplanin and vancomycin with regard to clinical failure (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.05), microbiological failure (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.65), and other efficacy outcomes. Lower RRs (in favor of teicoplanin) for clinical failure were observed with a lower risk of bias and when treatment was initiated for infections caused by gram-positive organisms rather than empirically. Total adverse events (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.74), nephrotoxicity (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.61), and red man syndrome were significantly less frequent with teicoplanin. Teicoplanin is not inferior to vancomycin with regard to efficacy and is associated with a lower adverse event rate than vancomycin.

Project description:Background The effect of extended thromboprophylaxis in improving the prognosis of adult patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) after discharge remains debatable. This meta-analysis was aimed to determine the advantages and disadvantages of extended thromboprophylaxis in these patients. Methods Different databases such as PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for studies that evaluated the effects of extended thromboprophylaxis in post-discharge patients with COVID-19 until 13 June 2022. The primary efficacy outcome was defined by the composite outcome of thromboembolism and all-cause mortality, and the safety outcome was defined by bleeding events. The odds ratios (ORs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) of efficacy and safety outcomes were calculated using fixed- or random-effects model. Interaction analysis was performed to assess and compare observational studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). A sensitivity analysis was performed after excluding studies of poor quality. Results Eight studies involving 10,148 patients were included. The results confirmed that extended thromboprophylaxis, primarily prophylactic use of anticoagulants for <35 days, was significantly associated with reduced composite outcome in high-risk post-discharge patients with COVID-19 (OR: 0.52; 95 % CI: 0.41–0.67, P = 0.000). Interaction analysis revealed that the effect estimates were consistent between the RCT and observational studies (Pinteraction = 0.310). Furthermore, extended thromboprophylaxis did not increase the risk of major bleeding events (OR: 1.64; 95 % CI: 0.95–2.82, P = 0.075). Conclusion In post-discharge patients with COVID-19 at high risk of thromboembolism, extended thromboprophylaxis, primarily prophylactic use of anticoagulants for <35 days, can significantly reduce the risk of thrombosis and all-cause mortality without increasing the risk of major bleeding events. Registration PROSPERO CRD42022339399.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with advanced breast cancer usually have poor prognosis. Apatinib is a small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor, and the reports regarding the efficacy and safety of apatinib monotherapy for advanced breast cancer in the current literature are controversial. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to collect and pool efficacy and safety data of apatinib monotherapy for advanced breast cancer with the aim of providing up-to-date evidence to aid clinical practice.MethodsThis study was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020190049). Three literature databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library, were searched. For evaluating efficacy, the objective response rate and disease control rate were extracted or calculated. Safety was evaluated in terms of the proportions of patients with grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events. The pooled proportions of the outcomes and their 95% confidence interval were shown. The Kaplan-Meier curves of overall survival and progression-free survival were pooled from the extracted data of the included studies. Furthermore, pooled medians for overall survival and progression-free survival were calculated. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.ResultsSix studies were included and deemed eligible for further quality evaluation and analysis. The pooled objective response rate and disease control rate were 20.4% and 71.6%, respectively. The pooled proportions of four hematologic adverse events ranged from 2.6% to 6.9%. The pooled proportions of hypertension, hand-foot syndrome, transaminase increased, and proteinuria ranged from 4.1% to 24.3%, and other non-hematologic adverse events were <1%. The pooled median progression-free survival and overall survival were 4.00 and 10.43 months, respectively, in cases of advanced breast cancer treated with apatinib.ConclusionsThis study confirms the reliable efficacy of apatinib monotherapy for advanced breast cancer. However, non-hematologic grade 3-4 adverse events, especially hypertension, are more frequently observed during apatinib treatment than during treatment with other tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as sunitinib or sorafenib.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42020190049.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of intradialytic exercise for haemodialysis patients.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesDatabases, including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, China Biology Medicine and China National Knowledge Infrastructure, were screened from inception to March 2017.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) aimed at comparing the efficacy and safety of intradialytic exercise versus no exercise in adult patients on haemodialysis for at least 3 months. A minimum exercise programme period of 8 weeks.Data extractionStudy characteristics and study quality domains were reviewed. Studies were selected, and data extracted by two reviewers.Data analysisThe pooled risk ratios and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for dichotomous data and continuous data were calculated, respectively.ResultsA total of 27 RCTs involving 1215 subjects were analysed. Compared with no exercise, intradialytic exercise increased dialysis adequacy (Kt/V) (MD 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.12, p=0.02) and maximum volume of oxygen that the body can use during physical exertion peak oxygen consumption (MD 4.11, 95% CI 2.94 to 5.27, p<0.0001), alleviated depression standardised mean difference (-1.16, 95% CI -1.86 to -0.45, p=0.001) and improved physical component summary-short form-36 (SF-36) level (MD 7.72, 95% CI 1.93 to 13.51, p=0.009). Also, intradialytic exercise could significantly reduce systolic blood pressure (MD -4.87, 95% CI -9.20 to -0.55, p=0.03) as well as diastolic blood pressure (MD -4.11, 95% CI -6.50 to -1.72, p=0.0007). However, intradialytic exercise could not improve mental component summary-SF-36 level (MD 3.05, 95% CI -1.47 to 7.57, p=0.19). There was no difference in the incidence of adverse events between the intradialytic exercise and control groups.ConclusionsIntradialytic exercise resulted in benefits in terms of improving haemodialysis adequacy, exercise capacity, depression and quality of life for haemodialysis.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets