Dataset Information

The efficacy and safety of osimertinib in treating nonsmall cell lung cancer: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) is the primary treatment in treating with EGFR mutant nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the third-generation EGFR-TKI, osimertinib, and summarize the risk factors associating with outcome after osimertinib treatment.

Method

The Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Pubmed were systematically searched due to December 10, 2019. All the studies that mentioned the overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), treatment response, and adverse events (AEs) of osimertinib were involved in our study. Hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals was used for comparing OS and PFS.

Result

A total of 47 studies were included in the systematic review, of which 14 studies were used to compare the efficacy between osimertinib and other EGFR-TKI or chemotherapy. Patients treating with osimertinib favors a higher OS and PFS in all the patients (HR = 0.56 and 0.38, P < .001, respectively), and in subgroup analysis, compared with other treatments. Median 55% T790 mutant NSCLC patients might experience partial response, and 25% of patients remained as stable disease. The incidence of severe AE ranged from 0% to 5%, and the most common severe AE was pneumonia (3%). Patients with the T858R mutation may have a better OS than Del 19 mutation (HR = 0.55, P = .037), while patients who have a smoking history may have a higher risk of progression than never-smoker patients (HR = 1.47, P = .028).

Conclusion

Osimertinib has an impressive antitumor activity compared with prior EGFR-TKI and chemotherapy with an acceptable response and tolerable AEs. EGFR mutation type and smoking status were the risk factors for mortality and progression in NSCLC patients.

SUBMITTER: Liu J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7447427 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The efficacy and safety of osimertinib in treating nonsmall cell lung cancer: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis.

Liu Jing J Li Xuemei X Shao Yinghong Y Guo Xiyun X He Jinggui J

Medicine 20200801 34

<h4>Background</h4>Epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) is the primary treatment in treating with EGFR mutant nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the third-generation EGFR-TKI, osimertinib, and summarize the risk factors associating with outcome after osimertinib treatment.<h4>Method</h4>The Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Pubmed were systematically searched due to De ...[more]

PMID: 32846826

Similar Datasets

Project description:The safety and efficacy of different drugs in treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) patients who could not maintain normal glucose level only through diet and exercise remains to be debated. We performed this network meta-analysis (NAM) to compare and rank different antidiabetic drugs in glucose level control and pregnancy outcomes in GDM patients.We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase up to December 31, 2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to different drugs in the treatment of GDM patients were enrolled. We extracted the relevant information and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We did pair-wise meta-analyses using the fixed-effects model or random-effects model and then adopted random-effects NAM combining both direct and indirect evidence within a Bayesian framework, to calculate the odds ratio (OR) or standardized mean difference (SMD) and to draw a surface under the cumulative ranking curve of the neonatal and maternal outcomes of different treatments in GDM patients.Thirty-two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this NAM, including 6 kinds of treatments (metformin, metformin plus insulin, insulin, glyburide, acarbose, and placebo). The results of the NAM showed that regarding the incidence of macrosomia and LGA, metformin had lower incidence than glyburide (OR, 0.5411 and 0.4177). In terms of the incidence of admission to the NICU, insulin had higher incidence compared with glyburide (OR, 1.844). As for the incidence of neonatal hypoglycemia, metformin had lower incidence than insulin and glyburide (OR, 0.6331 and 0.3898), and insulin was lower than glyburide (OR, 0.6236). For mean birth weight, metformin plus insulin was lower than insulin (SMD, -0.5806), glyburide (SMD, -0.7388), and placebo (SMD, -0.6649). Besides, metformin was observed to have lower birth weight than glyburide (SMD, 0.2591). As for weight gain, metformin and metformin plus insulin were lower than insulin (SMD, -0.9166, -1.53). Ranking results showed that glyburide might be the optimum treatment regarding average glucose control, and metformin is the fastest in glucose control for GDM patients; glyburide have the highest incidence of macrosomia, preeclampsia, hyperbilirubinemia, neonatal hypoglycemia, shortest gestational age at delivery, and lowest mean birth weight; metformin (plus insulin when required) have the lowest incidence of macrosomia, PIH, LGA, RDS, low gestational age at delivery, and low birth weight. Besides, insulin had the highest incidence of NICU admission, acarbose had the lowest risk of neonatal hypoglycemia.Our study concluded that metformin is fastest in glucose control, with a more favorable pregnancy outcomes-would be a better option, but its rate of glucose control is the lowest.However, glyburide is the optimumtreatment regarding the rate of glucose control, but withmore adverse outcomes. This NAMbased on 32 RCTs will strongly help to guide further development of management for GDM patients, clinicians should carefully balance the risk-benefit profile of different treatments according to various situations.

Project description:Background and purposeWhether the direct aspiration approach of thrombectomy for recanalization in patients with acute ischemic stroke has a similar efficacy and safety compared to the stent-retriever remains uncertain.MethodsWe conducted a meta-analysis of 9 studies obtained through PubMed and Embase database searches to determine whether successful recanalization rate, good functional outcome at 3 months (modified Rankin score, mRS?2), procedure time from groin puncture to maximal revascularization and procedure-related adverse events differed between patients who underwent the direct aspiration and those receiving stent-retriever for recanalization in acute cerebral infarction.ResultsThere was no significant difference between the direct aspiration group and the stent-retriever group in rate of successful recanalization (summary odds ratio [OR], 0.86 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.45-1.52]; P?=?.60), but a better functional outcomes in the direct aspiration group at 3 months defined as a mRS score of 0 to 2 (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66-0.97; P?=?.03). Furthermore, the direct aspiration patients compared with the stent-retriever patients had a tendency of shorter procedural time (Mean difference [MD], -8.77 [95% CI, from-18.90 to 1.37]; P?=?.09). Finally, there were less adverse events especially in symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH) (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.33-0.98; P?=?.04) and embolization to a new territory (ENT) (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.28-0.84; P?=?.01) in the direct aspiration group when compared with the stent-retriever group, although no difference between them in the rate of any ICH (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.41-1.60; P?=?.54).ConclusionsThe results support that the direct aspiration technique for those acute ischemic stroke patients may have better functional outcomes, less procedure related-adverse events and a tendency of faster revascularization time as compared to the stent-retriever thrombectomy, with a similar successful recanalization rate. However, major limitations of current evidence (mainly from retrospective and observational studies and a small number of patients population) indicate a need for adequately powered, multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCT) to answer this question.

Project description:Heart failure is a public health problem and a great economic burden for patients and healthcare systems. Suppression of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) by angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitors remains the mainstay of treatment for heart failure. However, the abundance of ACE inhibitors makes it difficult for doctors to choose.We performed this network meta-analysis of ACEIs in patients with heart failure in order to address this area of uncertainty.We searched PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and Medline.Any randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of captopril, enalapril, lisinopril, ramipril, or trandolapril or combined interventions of 2 or more of these drugs.Two reviewers extracted the data and made the quality assessment. At first, we used Stata software (version 12.0, StataCorp, College Station, TX) to make traditional pairwise meta-analyses for studies that directly compared different interventions. Then, network meta-analysis was performed using WinBUGS (version 1.4.3, MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK).A total of 29 studies were included. Lisinopril was associated with a higher rate of all-cause mortality compared with placebo (odds ratio 65.9, 95% credible interval 1.91 to 239.6) or ramipril (14.65, 1.23 to 49.5). Enalapril significantly reduced systolic blood pressure when compared with placebo (standardized mean differences -0.6, 95% credible interval -1.03 to -0.18). Both captopril (odds ratio 76.2, 95% credible interval 1.56 to 149.3) and enalapril (274.4, 2.4 to 512.9) were associated with a higher incidence of cough compared to placebo.Some important outcomes such as rehospitalization and cardiac death were not included. The sample size and the number of studies were limited, especially for ramipril.Our results suggest that enalapril might be the best option when considering factors such as increased ejection fraction, stroke volume, and decreased mean arterial pressure. However, enalapril was associated with the highest incidence of cough, gastrointestinal discomfort, and greater deterioration in renal function. Trandolapril ranked first in reducing systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Ramipril was associated with the lowest incidence of all-cause mortality. Lisinopril was the least effective in lowering systolic and diastolic blood pressure and was associated with the highest incidence of all-cause mortality.

Dataset Information

The efficacy and safety of osimertinib in treating nonsmall cell lung cancer: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Method

Result

Conclusion

Publications

The efficacy and safety of osimertinib in treating nonsmall cell lung cancer: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets