Treatments for infantile Hemangioma: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Infantile hemangioma (IH) is common in children, which may bring about cosmetically disfiguring, functional impairment, and exhibiting complications. There had been various therapies and we aimed to assess the efficacy and adverse effects of different therapies through network meta-analysis.Methods
We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science (from database inception to April 11, 2020) for studies assessing the efficacy, success rate and adverse effects. Direct pairwise comparison and a network meta-analysis under random effects were performed. We also assessed the ranking probability.Findings
A total of 30 randomized clinical trials with more than 20 different therapeutic regimens were identified. Treatment combined propranolol orally with laser could improve the curative effect than monotherapy. Laser with topical β blockers showed more efficiency than others whether in children under 6 months or not. The long-pulsed dye laser might be the best laser therapy. A higher dose and a longer treatment duration of propranolol orally achieved a higher success rate and increased side effects. Plus pulse dye laser with propranolol had the lowest incidence of adverse reactions, such as ulcer, color sink and color reduction.Interpretation
A combination of β blockers and laser might be the first-line treatment of IHs and a longer pulsed dye laser is preferred.Funding
No funding was received.
SUBMITTER: Fei Q
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7565185 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The goal of nonrestorative or non- and microinvasive caries treatment (fluoride- and nonfluoride-based interventions) is to manage the caries disease process at a lesion level and minimize the loss of sound tooth structure. The purpose of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to summarize the available evidence on nonrestorative treatments for the outcomes of 1) arrest or reversal of noncavitated and cavitated carious lesions on primary and permanent teeth and 2) adverse events. We included parallel and split-mouth randomized controlled trials where patients were followed for any length of time. Studies were identified with MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Pairs of reviewers independently conducted the selection of studies, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessments, and assessment of the certainty in the evidence with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Data were synthesized with a random effects model and a frequentist approach. Forty-four trials (48 reports) were eligible, which included 7,378 participants and assessed the effect of 22 interventions in arresting or reversing noncavitated or cavitated carious lesions. Four network meta-analyses suggested that sealants + 5% sodium fluoride (NaF) varnish, resin infiltration + 5% NaF varnish, and 5,000-ppm F (1.1% NaF) toothpaste or gel were the most effective for arresting or reversing noncavitated occlusal, approximal, and noncavitated and cavitated root carious lesions on primary and/or permanent teeth, respectively (low- to moderate-certainty evidence). Study-level data indicated that 5% NaF varnish was the most effective for arresting or reversing noncavitated facial/lingual carious lesions (low certainty) and that 38% silver diamine fluoride solution applied biannually was the most effective for arresting advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface (moderate to high certainty). Preventing the onset of caries is the ultimate goal of a caries management plan. However, if the disease is present, there is a variety of effective interventions to treat carious lesions nonrestoratively.
| S-EPMC6304695 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe antifibrotics pirfenidone and nintedanib are both approved for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) by regulatory agencies and are recommended by health technology assessment bodies. Other treatments such as N-acetylcysteine are used in clinical practice but have not received regulatory approval. No head-to-head trials have been conducted to directly compare the efficacy of these therapies in IPF.ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of treatments for IPF.MethodsA systematic review was conducted up to April 2015. Phase II/III randomized controlled trials in adults with IPF were eligible. A Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was used to compare pirfenidone, nintedanib, and N-acetylcysteine with respect to forced vital capacity (FVC) and mortality.ResultsNine studies were included in the NMA. For change from baseline in FVC, the NMA indicated that pirfenidone and nintedanib were more effective than placebo after 1 year (pirfenidone vs. placebo: difference = 0.12 liter (L), 95% credible interval [CrI] = 0.03-0.21 L; nintedanib vs. placebo: difference = 0.11 L, 95% CrI = 0.00-0.22 L). There was no evidence that N-acetylcysteine had an effect on FVC compared with placebo (N-acetylcysteine vs. placebo: difference = 0.01 L, 95% CrI = -0.15-0.17 L). Patients treated with pirfenidone also had a lower risk of experiencing a decline in percent predicted FVC of ≥ 10% over 1 year (odds ratio [OR]: 0.58, 95% CrI = 0.40-0.88), whereas there was no conclusive evidence of a difference between nintedanib and placebo (OR: 0.65, 95% CrI = 0.42-1.02). The NMA indicated that pirfenidone reduced all-cause mortality relative to placebo over 1 year (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.52, 95% CrI = 0.28-0.92). There was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality between nintedanib and placebo (HR: 0.70, 95% CrI = 0.32-1.55), or N-acetylcysteine and placebo (HR: 2.00, 95% CrI=0.46-8.62).ConclusionsOur primary analysis of the available evidence indicates that over 1 year, pirfenidone and nintedanib are effective at reducing lung-function decline, and pirfenidone may reduce the odds of experiencing a decline in percent predicted FVC of ≥10% compared with placebo in the first year of treatment. The results of our analysis also suggest that pirfenidone improves survival.DisclosuresFleetwood is an employee of Quantics Consulting. McCool and Glanville are employees of York Health Economics Consortium (YHEC). Quantics and YHEC received funding from F. Hoffmann-La Roche for conducting the systematic review and network meta-analysis reported in this paper. Edwards, Gsteiger, and Daigl are employees of F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Fisher was employed by InterMune UK, a wholly owned Roche subsidiary, until July 2015. He is currently employed by FIECON, which has received funding from F. Hoffmann-La Roche for consulting services. The systematic review and network meta-analysis reported in this paper were conducted by Fleetwood (Quantics Consulting) and McCool and Glanville (YHEC), funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. The original network analysis was funded by InterMune. Study concept and design were contributed by Edwards, Gsteiger, and Daigl, along with Fleetwood, McCool, and Glanville. Fleetwood, McCool, and Glanville collected the data, with assistance from Edwards, Gsteiger, and Daigl. Data interpretation was performed by Fleetwood and Fisher, with assistance from the other authors. The manuscript was written by Fleetwood, McCool, and Glanville, with assistance from Edwards, Daigl, and Fisher, and revised by all the authors.
| S-EPMC10410677 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hemangioma is a common benign tumor in the childhood; however our knowledge about the molecular mechanisms of hemangioma development and progression are still limited. Currently, microRNAs (miRNAs) have been shown as gene expression regulators with an important role in disease pathogenesis. Our goals were to identify miRNA-mRNA expression networks associated with infantile hemangioma.We performed a meta-analysis of previously published gene expression datasets including 98 hemangioma samples. Deregulated genes were further used to identify microRNAs as potential regulators of gene expression in infantile hemangioma. Data were integrated using bioinformatics methods, and genes were mapped in proteins, which were then used to construct protein-protein interaction networks.Deregulated genes play roles in cell growth and differentiation, cell signaling, angiogenesis and vasculogenesis. Regulatory networks identified included microRNAs miR-9, miR-939 and let-7 family; these microRNAs showed the most number of interactions with deregulated genes in infantile hemangioma, suggesting that they may have an important role in the molecular mechanisms of disease. Additionally, results were used to identify drug-gene interactions and druggable gene categories using Drug-Gene Interaction Database. We show that microRNAs and microRNA-target genes may be useful biomarkers for the development of novel therapeutic strategies for patients with infantile hemangioma.microRNA-regulated pathways may play a role in infantile hemangioma development and progression and may be potentially useful for future development of novel therapeutic strategies for patients with infantile hemangioma.
| S-EPMC4715339 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Multiple treatments of unresectable advanced or metastatic melanoma have been licensed in the adjuvant setting, causing tremendous interest in developing neoadjuvant strategies for melanoma. Eligible studies included those that compared overall survival/progression-free survival/grade 3 or 4 adverse events in patients with unresectable advanced or metastatic melanoma. Seven eligible randomized trials with nine publications were included in this study. Direct and network meta-analysis consistently indicated that nivolumab+ipilimumab, nivolumab, and trametinib could significantly improve overall survival and progression-free survival compared to ipilimumab in advanced melanoma patients. Compared to ipilimumab, nivolumab, dacarbazine, and ipilimumab+gp100 had a reduced risk of grade 3/4 adverse reactions. The nivolumab+ipilimumab combination had the highest risk of adverse events, followed by ipilimumab+dacarbazine and trametinib. Combination therapy was more beneficial to improve overall survival and progression-free survival than monotherapy in advanced melanoma treatment, albeit at the cost of increased toxicity. Regarding the overall survival/progression-free survival, ipilimumab+gp100 ranked below ipilimumab+dacarbazine and nivolumab+ipilimumab, although it had a smaller rate of grade 3 or 4 AEs than other treatments (except nivolumab). Nivolumab is the optimum adjuvant treatment for unresectable advanced or metastatic melanoma with a good risk-benefit profile. In order to choose the best therapy, clinicians must consider the efficacy, adverse events, and physical status.
| S-EPMC9247312 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).DesignLiving systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesWHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 3 December 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 1 December 2021 were included in the analysis.Study selectionRandomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.MethodsAfter duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance.Results463 trials enrolling 166 581 patients were included; 267 (57.7%) trials and 89 814 (53.9%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 265 (57.2%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, three drugs reduced mortality in patients with mostly severe disease with at least moderate certainty: systemic corticosteroids (risk difference 23 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 40 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), interleukin-6 receptor antagonists when given with corticosteroids (23 fewer per 1000, 36 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), and Janus kinase inhibitors (44 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 20 fewer, high certainty). Compared with standard care, two drugs probably reduce hospital admission in patients with non-severe disease: nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (36 fewer per 1000, 41 fewer to 26 fewer, moderate certainty) and molnupiravir (19 fewer per 1000, 29 fewer to 5 fewer, moderate certainty). Remdesivir may reduce hospital admission (29 fewer per 1000, 40 fewer to 6 fewer, low certainty). Only molnupiravir had at least moderate quality evidence of a reduction in time to symptom resolution (3.3 days fewer, 4.8 fewer to 1.6 fewer, moderate certainty); several others showed a possible benefit. Several drugs may increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation; hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of mechanical ventilation (moderate certainty).ConclusionCorticosteroids, interleukin-6 receptor antagonists, and Janus kinase inhibitors probably reduce mortality and confer other important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir probably reduce admission to hospital in patients with non-severe covid-19.Systematic review registrationThis review was not registered. The protocol is publicly available in the supplementary material.Readers' noteThis article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This is the fifth version of the original article published on 30 July 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.
| S-EPMC7390912 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study designSystematic review with network meta-analysis.ObjectiveTo compare patient outcomes of lumbar discectomy with bone-anchored annular closure (LD + AC), lumbar discectomy (LD), and continuing conservative care (CC) for treatment of lumbar disc herniation refractory to initial conservative management.Summary of background dataSeveral treatment options are available to patients with refractory symptoms of lumbar disc herniation, but their comparative efficacy is unclear.MethodsA systematic review was performed to compare efficacy of LD + AC, LD, and CC for treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Outcomes included leg pain, back pain, disability (each reported on a 0-100 scale), reherniation, and reoperation. Data were analyzed using random effects network meta-analysis.ResultsThis review included 14 comparative studies (8 randomized) involving 3947 patients-11 studies of LD versus CC (3232 patients), 3 studies of LD + AC versus LD (715 patients), and no studies of LD + AC versus CC. LD was more effective than CC in reducing leg pain (mean difference [MD] -10, P < .001) and back pain (MD -7, P < .001). LD + AC was more effective than LD in reducing risk of reherniation (odds ratio 0.38, P < .001) and reoperation (odds ratio 0.33, P < .001). There was indirect evidence that LD + AC was more effective than CC in reducing leg pain (MD -25, P = .003), back pain (MD -20, P = .02), and disability (MD -13, P = .02) although the treatment effect was smaller in randomized trials.ConclusionsResults of a network meta-analysis show LD is more effective than CC in alleviating symptoms of lumbar disc herniation refractory to initial conservative management. Further, LD + AC lowers risk of reherniation and reoperation versus LD and may improve patient symptoms more than CC.
| S-EPMC6408089 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTemporomandibular disorders (TMD) comprise a cluster of conditions with a wide range of etiological factors that causes pain and discomfort in the masticatory muscles (TMD-M) and temporomandibular joints (TMD-J). More than 50% of the patients with TMD report regular usage of drugs. However, there is still no consensus, nor is there any evidence-based support for clinicians when choosing between different drugs. Therefore, this systematic review, including a network meta-analysis (NMA), aimed to evaluate the scientific evidence and discuss the pharmacological treatment options available to treat painful TMD.MethodAn electronic search was undertaken to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating pharmacological treatments for TMD-M and/or TMD-J, published until 6 April 2023. Since only 11 articles could be used for an NMA regarding TMD-M, a narrative synthesis was also performed for all 40 included RCTs. The quality of evidence was rated according to Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias, while the certainty of evidence was rated according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).ResultsWhen it comes to TMD-M, evidence arises for wet needling therapies with BTX-A, granisetron, and PRP as well as muscle relaxants. For TMD-J, evidence points toward pharmacological treatment approaches including non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and glucocorticosteriods (for inflammatory conditions) as well as hyaluronic acid and dextrose.ConclusionsThe evidence clearly indicates that the pharmacological treatment approaches differ between TMD-M and TMD-J. Therefore, it is of great importance to first try to uncover each patient's individual and multifactorial etiology and then employ a multifaceted treatment strategy, including pharmacological treatment approaches.
| S-EPMC10789663 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceIncidence of neonatal abstinence syndrome is rising rapidly, and optimal pharmacotherapy may meaningfully reduce length of treatment.ObjectiveTo compare pharmacological therapies for neonatal abstinence syndrome.Data sourcesSystematic review and network meta-analysis of Medline (1946-June 2018), Embase (1974-June 2018), Cochrane CENTRAL (1966-June 2018), Web of Science (1900-June 2018), and ClinicalTrials.gov (June 2018).Study selectionRandomized clinical trials of pharmacological treatments for neonatal abstinence syndrome alone or in combination with adjuvant treatments. Abstract, title, and full-text screening were conducted independently by 2 reviewers (T.D. and C.G.).Data extraction and synthesisData extraction was conducted independently by 2 reviewers (T.D. and C.G.) according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)-Network Meta-Analyses guidelines. Quality was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and data were pooled with fixed-effect models as a result of the low number of trials that were included in the analysis.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the length of treatment. The length of stay, need for adjuvant therapy, and adverse events were considered as secondary outcomes.ResultsEighteen trials (N = 1072) were eligible for inclusion. The treatments that were included in the length of treatment analysis were buprenorphine, clonidine, diluted tincture of opium and clonidine, diluted tincture of opium, morphine, methadone, and phenobarbital. Sublingual buprenorphine was considered the optimal treatment for a reduction in the length of treatment (days: mean difference vs morphine, -12.75 [95% CI, -17.97 to -7.58]; median rank, 1 [3-1]) and length of stay (days: mean difference vs morphine, -11.43 [95% CI, -16.95 to -5.82]; median rank, 1 [3-1]) but not the need for adjuvant treatment (odds ratio vs morphine, 1.23 [95% CI, 0.46-3.44]; median rank, 3 [5-1]). The results were robust to bias but sensitive to imprecision.Conclusions and relevanceThe current evidence suggests that buprenorphine is the optimal treatment for neonatal abstinence treatment, but limitations are considerable and wide-scale adoption requires a large multisite trial. Morphine, which is considered standard of care in most hospitals, was the lowest-ranked opioid for length of treatment and length of stay.
| S-EPMC6439896 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Vascular dementia (VaD) is one of the most prevalent, burdensome, and costly forms of dementia. Pharmacological treatment is often the first-line choice for clinicians; however, there is a paucity of comparative information regarding the multiple available drug options. A systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted on randomized trials involving adult patients with VaD, sourced from PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, OPENGREY, ClinicalTrials.gov, Wanfang Data, and CNKI. The primary outcomes included changes in Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores, activities of daily living (ADL) scores, and the incidence of adverse reactions. Efficacy and safety of intervention strategies were comprehensively analyzed using forest plots, cumulative ranking probability curves (SUCRA), and funnel plots, all generated with R software. A total of 194 RCTs comparing 21 different anti-VaD drugs with placebos or no treatment were analysed. Regarding MMSE scores, the five most effective drugs were Butylphthalide, Huperzine A, Edaravone, Rivastigmine, and Memantine. For ADL scores, the top five drugs in efficacy were Huperzine A, Butylphthalide, Tianzhi granule, Nicergoline, and Idebenone. In terms of the incidence of adverse drug reactions, Co-dergocrine Mesylate, Tongxinluo capsule, Butylphthalide, Piracetam, and Oxiracetam demonstrated favourable safety profiles. This study enhances the understanding of the relative benefits and risks associated with various VaD treatments, providing a valuable reference for clinical decision-making. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier registration number.
| S-EPMC11374729 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCurrently, preoperative chemoradiotherapy, perioperative chemotherapy and preoperative chemotherapy are recommended by NCCN, ESMO and Japanese guidelines respectively for resectable esophageal and junctional cancer. However, these recommendations are mainly based on esophageal cancer research. Therefore, specific for esophagogastric junction cancer, we conducted the first systematic review and network meta-analysis to rank all potential treatments simultaneously and hierarchically.MethodsRecord retrieval was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, ASCO and ESMO Meeting Library from inception to September 2018. Regarding time-to-event survival data, randomized controlled trials featuring comparisons between different multimodal treatments against resectable esophagogastric junction cancer were eligible. Overall survival was the endpoint. Network calculation was based on a random-effects model and the relative ranking of each node was numerically indicated by P-score (CRD42018110369, registration identifier of the meta-analysis in PROSPERO.).ResultsEight studies were included in our systematic review, corresponding to 1218 patients. Regarding overall survival, 'PreCRT' (preoperative chemoradiotherapy) topped the hierarchy (HR 1.00, P-score = 0.823), better than 'PeriCT' (perioperative chemotherapy; HR 1.32, P-score = 0.591) and 'PreCT' (preoperative chemotherapy; HR 1.54, P-score = 0.428). In sensitivity analyses, irrespective of interchanging to fixed-effects model or removing potentially heterogeneous studies, relative rankings remained stable and 'PreCRT' was still the optimal node.ConclusionPreoperative chemoradiotherapy could potentially be the optimal multimodal treatment, which displayed more overall survival benefits than perioperative chemotherapy and preoperative chemotherapy among resectable esophagogastric junction cancer patients. To further verify our pooled results, more randomized trials will be needed to compare preoperative chemoradiotherapy with perioperative chemotherapy (especially FLOT-based regimens).
| S-EPMC6446435 | biostudies-literature