Dataset Information

Interferon Therapy in Myelofibrosis: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Myelofibrosis (MF) is a Philadelphia chromosome-negative myeloproliferative neoplasm characterized by progressive bone marrow failure, increased risk of progression to acute myeloid leukemia, and constitutional symptoms. For over 3 decades, various formulations of interferon (IFN) have been used for the treatment of MF, with variable results, and the role of IFN in the treatment of MF is evolving.

Patients and methods

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, Medline and Embase via Ovid, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science were searched from inception through March 2019 for studies of pegylated IFN (peg-IFN) and non-peg-IFN in MF patients. The primary outcome of overall response rate was defined as a composite of complete response, partial response, complete hematologic response, and partial hematologic response. Random-effects models were used to pool overall response rate, and metaregression analyses were performed to compare peg-IFN and non--peg-IFN formulations.

Results

Among the 10 studies with 141 MF patients included, the overall response rate was 49.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 30.4-69.3), and there was no statistically significant difference (P = .99) between peg-IFN (50.0%; 95% CI, 26.2-73.9; I² = 76.9%) and non-peg-IFN (49.6%; 95% CI, 20.5-79.0; I² = 56.7%). Treatment discontinuation resulting from adverse events was common with non-peg-IFN at 35.8% (95% CI, 3.5-68.1) per year, and less in the one study on peg-IFN (0.5% per year).

Conclusion

IFN can lead to hematologic improvements in a subset of MF patients, but study quality is limited and heterogenous. Biomarkers predicting response to IFN and formulations with improved tolerability are needed.

SUBMITTER: Bewersdorf JP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7541411 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (allo-HCT) remains the only potentially curative therapeutic modality for patients with primary or secondary myelofibrosis (MF). However, many patients are considered ineligible for allo-HCT, and transplant-related mortality can be substantial. Data on the efficacy and safety of allo-HCT are mixed and largely derived from retrospective studies. We aimed to synthesize the available evidence on the safety and efficacy of allo-HCT in MF and to identify patient, disease, and transplant characteristics with prognostic impact on outcomes of patients with MF undergoing allo-HCT. For this systematic review and meta-analysis, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection were searched from inception to October 11, 2020, for studies on allo-HCT in MF. Random-effects models were used to pool response rates for the co-primary outcomes of 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year overall survival (OS). Rates of non-relapse mortality and acute and chronic graft-versus-host-disease (GVHD) were studied as secondary endpoints. Subgroup analyses on the effect of conditioning regimen intensity, baseline dynamic international prognostic scoring system (DIPSS) score, and patient age were performed. The study protocol has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020188706). Forty-three studies with 8739 patients were identified and included in this meta-analysis. Rates of 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year OS were 66.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 63.5%-69.8%), 64.4% (95% CI, 57.6%-70.6%), and 55.0% (95% CI, 51.8%-58.3%), respectively. Rates of 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year nonrelapse mortality were 25.9% (95% CI, 23.3%-28.7%), 29.7% (95% CI, 24.5%-35.4%), and 30.5% (95% CI, 25.9%-35.5%), respectively. The combined rate of graft failure was 10.6% (95% CI, 8.9%-12.5%) with primary and secondary graft failure occurring in 7.3% (95% CI, 5.7%-9.4%) and 5.9% (95% CI, 4.3%-8.0%) of patients, respectively. Rates of acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease were 44.0% (95% CI, 39.6%-48.4%; grade III/IV: 15.2%) and 46.5% (95% CI, 42.2%-50.8%; extensive or moderate/severe: 26.1%), respectively. Subgroup analyses did not show any significant difference between conditioning regimen intensity (myeloablative versus reduced-intensity), median patient age, and proportion of DIPSS-intermediate-2/high patients. The quality of the evidence is limited by the absence of randomized clinical trials in the field and the heterogeneity of patient and transplant characteristics across included studies. Given the poor prognosis of patients not receiving transplants and in the absence of curative nontransplantation therapies, our results support consideration of allo-HCT for eligible patients with MF.

Project description:Concern regarding coronavirus (CoV) outbreaks has stayed relevant to global health in the last decades. Emerging COVID-19 infection, caused by the novel SARS-CoV2, is now a pandemic, bringing a substantial burden to human health. Interferon (IFN), combined with other antivirals and various treatments, has been used to treat and prevent MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV, and SARS-CoV2 infections. We aimed to assess the clinical efficacy of IFN-based treatments and combinational therapy with antivirals, corticosteroids, traditional medicine, and other treatments. Major healthcare databases and grey literature were investigated. A three-stage screening was utilized, and included studies were checked against the protocol eligibility criteria. Risk of bias assessment and data extraction were performed, followed by narrative data synthesis. Fifty-five distinct studies of SARS-CoV2, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV were spotted. Our narrative synthesis showed a possible benefit in the use of IFN. A good quality cohort showed lower CRP levels in Arbidol (ARB) + IFN group vs. IFN only group. Another study reported a significantly shorter chest X-ray (CXR) resolution in IFN-Alfacon-1 + corticosteroid group compared with the corticosteroid only group in SARS-CoV patients. In a COVID-19 trial, total adverse drug events (ADEs) were much lower in the Favipiravir (FPV) + IFN-α group compared with the LPV/RTV arm (P = 0.001). Also, nausea in patients receiving FPV + IFN-α regimen was significantly lower (P = 0.03). Quantitative analysis of mortality did not show a conclusive effect for IFN/RBV treatment in six moderately heterogeneous MERS-CoV studies (log OR = -0.05, 95% CI: (-0.71,0.62), I2 = 44.71%). A meta-analysis of three COVID-19 studies did not show a conclusive nor meaningful relation between receiving IFN and COVID-19 severity (log OR = -0.44, 95% CI: (-1.13,0.25), I2 = 31.42%). A lack of high-quality cohorts and controlled trials was observed. Evidence suggests the potential efficacy of several combination IFN therapies such as lower ADEs, quicker resolution of CXR, or a decrease in inflammatory cytokines; Still, these options must possibly be further explored before being recommended in public guidelines. For all major CoVs, our results may indicate a lack of a definitive effect of IFN treatment on mortality. We recommend such therapeutics be administered with extreme caution until further investigation uncovers high-quality evidence in favor of IFN or combination therapy with IFN.

Project description:BackgroundAugmented reality (AR) is a rapidly expanding technology; it comprises the generation of new images from digital information in the real physical environment of a person, which simulates an environment where the artificial and real are mixed. The use of AR in physiotherapy has shown benefits in certain areas of patient health. However, these benefits have not been studied as a whole.ObjectiveThis study aims to ascertain the current scientific evidence on AR therapy as a complement to physiotherapy and to determine the areas in which it has been used the most and which variables and methods have been most effective.MethodsA systematic review registered in PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) recommendations. The search was conducted from July to August 2021 in the PubMed, PEDro, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library scientific databases using the keywords augmented reality, physiotherapy, physical therapy, exercise therapy, rehabilitation, physical medicine, fitness, and occupational therapy. The methodological quality was evaluated using the PEDro scale and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network scale to determine the degree of recommendation. The Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias.ResultsIn total, 11 articles were included in the systematic review. Of the 11 articles, 4 (36%) contributed information to the meta-analysis. Overall, 64% (7/11) obtained a good level of evidence, and most had a B degree of recommendation of evidence. A total of 308 participants were analyzed. Favorable results were found for the Berg Balance Scale (standardized mean change 0.473, 95% CI -0.0877 to 1.0338; z=1.65; P=.10) and the Timed Up and Go test (standardized mean change -1.211, 95% CI -3.2005 to 0.7768; z=-1.194; P=.23).ConclusionsAR, in combination with conventional therapy, has been used for the treatment of balance and fall prevention in geriatrics, lower and upper limb functionality in stroke, pain in phantom pain syndrome, and turning in place in patients with Parkinson disease with freezing of gait. AR is effective for the improvement of balance; however, given the small size of the samples and the high heterogeneity of the studies, the results were not conclusive. Future studies using larger sample sizes and with greater homogeneity in terms of the devices used and the frequency and intensity of the interventions are needed.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020180766; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=180766.