Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy of first-line therapeutic interventions for achalasia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Several interventions with variable efficacy are available as first-line therapy for patients with achalasia. We assessed the comparative efficacy of different strategies for management of achalasia, through a network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect treatment comparisons.

Methods

We identified six randomized controlled trials in adults with achalasia that compared the efficacy of pneumatic dilation (PD; n = 260), laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM; n = 309), and peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM; n = 176). Primary efficacy outcome was 1-year treatment success (patient-reported improvement in symptoms based on validated scores); secondary efficacy outcomes were 2-year treatment success and physiologic improvement; safety outcomes were risk of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), severe erosive esophagitis, and procedure-related serious adverse events. We performed pairwise and network meta-analysis for all treatments, and used GRADE criteria to appraise quality of evidence.

Results

Low-quality evidence, based primarily on direct evidence, supports the use of POEM (RR [risk ratio], 1.29; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.99-1.69), and LHM (RR, 1.18 [0.96-1.44]) over PD for treatment success at 1 year; no significant difference was observed between LHM and POEM (RR 1.09 [0.86-1.39]). The incidence of severe esophagitis after POEM, LHM, and PD was 5.3%, 3.7%, and 1.5%, respectively. Procedure-related serious adverse event rate after POEM, LHM, and PD was 1.4%, 6.7%, and 4.2%, respectively.

Conclusions

POEM and LHM have comparable efficacy, and may increase treatment success as compared to PD with low confidence in estimates. POEM may have lower rate of serious adverse events compared to LHM and PD, but higher rate of GERD.

SUBMITTER: Facciorusso A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8011535 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have become the preferred drugs for the treatment of chronic phase (CP) chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). This study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of different TKIs as first-line treatments for CML using network meta-analysis (NMA), providing a basis for the precise clinical use of TKIs.MethodsA systematic search was conducted on PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, China National knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Databases (VIP), SinoMed and ClinicalTrials.gov to include RCTs that compared the different TKIs as first line treatment for CML. The search timeline was from inception to 21 July 2023. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the frequentist NMA methods, the efficacy and safety of different TKIs were compared, including the rates of major molecular response (MMR), complete cytogenetic response (CCyR), all grade adverse events, grade 3 or higher hematologic adverse events and liver toxicity.ResultsA total of 25 RCTs involving 6,823 patients with CML and 6 types of TKIs were included. In terms of efficacy, second-generation TKIs such as dasatinib, nilotinib, and radotinib showed certain advantages in improving patients' MMR and CCyR compared to imatinib. Additionally, imatinib 800 mg provided better MMRs and CCyRs than imatinib 400 mg. As far as safety was concerned, there was no significant difference in the incidence of all grade adverse events among the different TKIs. All TKIs can cause serious grade 3-4 hematologic adverse events, including anemia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia. Dasatinib more likely caused anemia, bosutinib thrombocytopenia, and imatinib neutropenia, whereas nilotinib and flumatinib might have better safety profiles in terms of severe hematologic adverse events. For liver toxicity, radotinib 400 mg and imatinib 800 mg, respectively, had the highest likelihood of ranking first in incidence rates of all grade ALT and AST elevation.ConclusionsIn CML, second-generation TKIs are more clinically effective than imatinib even if this last drug has a relatively better safety profile. Thus, as each second-generation TKI has a distinct clinical efficacy and safety, and is associated with different economic factors, its choice should be dictated by the specific patient clinical conditions (patient's specific disease characteristics, comorbid conditions, potential drug interactions, as well as their adherence). Nevertheless, due to the limited number of original research, additional high-quality studies are needed to achieve any firm conclusion on which second-generation TKI is the best choice for that peculiar patient.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the relative efficacy of the World Health Organization 2005 campaign (WHO-5) and other interventions to promote hand hygiene among healthcare workers in hospital settings and to summarize associated information on use of resources.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, CINAHL, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Cochrane Library, and the EPOC register (December 2009 to February 2014); studies selected by the same search terms in previous systematic reviews (1980-2009).Review methodsIncluded studies were randomised controlled trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after trials, and interrupted time series studies implementing an intervention to improve compliance with hand hygiene among healthcare workers in hospital settings and measuring compliance or appropriate proxies that met predefined quality inclusion criteria. When studies had not used appropriate analytical methods, primary data were re-analysed. Random effects and network meta-analyses were performed on studies reporting directly observed compliance with hand hygiene when they were considered sufficiently homogeneous with regard to interventions and participants. Information on resources required for interventions was extracted and graded into three levels.ResultsOf 3639 studies retrieved, 41 met the inclusion criteria (six randomised controlled trials, 32 interrupted time series, one non-randomised trial, and two controlled before-after studies). Meta-analysis of two randomised controlled trials showed the addition of goal setting to WHO-5 was associated with improved compliance (pooled odds ratio 1.35, 95% confidence interval 1.04 to 1.76; I(2)=81%). Of 22 pairwise comparisons from interrupted time series, 18 showed stepwise increases in compliance with hand hygiene, and all but four showed a trend for increasing compliance after the intervention. Network meta-analysis indicated considerable uncertainty in the relative effectiveness of interventions, but nonetheless provided evidence that WHO-5 is effective and that compliance can be further improved by adding interventions including goal setting, reward incentives, and accountability. Nineteen studies reported clinical outcomes; data from these were consistent with clinically important reductions in rates of infection resulting from improved hand hygiene for some but not all important hospital pathogens. Reported costs of interventions ranged from $225 to $4669 (£146-£3035; €204-€4229) per 1000 bed days.ConclusionPromotion of hand hygiene with WHO-5 is effective at increasing compliance in healthcare workers. Addition of goal setting, reward incentives, and accountability strategies can lead to further improvements. Reporting of resources required for such interventions remains inadequate.

Project description:TOPIC:Primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) is a highly prevalent condition worldwide and the most common cause of irreversible sight loss. The objective is to assess the comparative effectiveness of first-line medical treatments in patients with POAG or ocular hypertension through a systematic review and network meta-analysis, and to provide relative rankings of these treatments. CLINICAL RELEVANCE:Treatment for POAG currently relies completely on lowering the intraocular pressure (IOP). Although topical drops, lasers, and surgeries can be considered in the initial treatment of glaucoma, most patients elect to start treatment with eye drops. METHODS:We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a single active topical medication with no treatment/placebo or another single topical medication. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Food and Drug Administration's website. Two individuals independently assessed trial eligibility, abstracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed Bayesian network meta-analyses. RESULTS:We included 114 RCTs with data from 20 275 participants. The overall risk of bias of the included trials is mixed. The mean reductions (95% credible intervals) in IOP in millimeters of mercury at 3 months ordered from the most to least effective drugs were as follows: bimatoprost 5.61 (4.94; 6.29), latanoprost 4.85 (4.24; 5.46), travoprost 4.83 (4.12; 5.54), levobunolol 4.51 (3.85; 5.24), tafluprost 4.37 (2.94; 5.83), timolol 3.70 (3.16; 4.24), brimonidine 3.59 (2.89; 4.29), carteolol 3.44 (2.42; 4.46), levobetaxolol 2.56 (1.52; 3.62), apraclonidine 2.52 (0.94; 4.11), dorzolamide 2.49 (1.85; 3.13), brinzolamide 2.42 (1.62; 3.23), betaxolol 2.24 (1.59; 2.88), and unoprostone 1.91 (1.15; 2.67). CONCLUSIONS:All active first-line drugs are effective compared with placebo in reducing IOP at 3 months. Bimatoprost, latanoprost, and travoprost are among the most efficacious drugs, although the within-class differences were small and may not be clinically meaningful. All factors, including adverse effects, patient preferences, and cost, should be considered in selecting a drug for a given patient.

Project description:BackgroundHead lice infestation is a major public health problem around the globe. Its treatment is challenging due to product failures resulting from rapidly emerging resistance to existing treatments, incorrect treatment applications and misdiagnosis. Various head lice treatments with different mechanism of action have been developed and explored over the years, with limited report on systematic assessments of their efficacy and safety. This work aims to present a robust evidence summarising the interventions used in head lice.MethodThis is a systematic review and network meta-analysis which will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement for network meta-analyses. Selected databases, including PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be systematically searched for randomised controlled trials exploring head lice treatments. Searches will be limited to trials published in English from database inception till 2021. Grey literature will be identified through Open Grey, AHRQ, Grey Literature Report, Grey Matters, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry and International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry. Additional studies will be sought from reference lists of included studies. Study screening, selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will be undertaken by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved via a third reviewer. The primary outcome measure is the relative risk of cure at 7 and 14 days postinitial treatment. Secondary outcome measures may include adverse drug events, ovicidal activity, treatment compliance and acceptability, and reinfestation. Information from direct and indirect evidence will be used to generate the effect sizes (relative risk) to compare the efficacy and safety of individual head lice treatments against a common comparator (placebo and/or permethrin). Risk of bias assessment will be undertaken by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations guideline for network meta-analysis. All quantitative analyses will be conducted using STATA V.16.DiscussionThe evidence generated from this systematic review and meta-analysis is intended for use in evidence-driven treatment of head lice infestations and will be instrumental in informing health professionals, public health practitioners and policy-makers.Prospero registration numberCRD42017073375.

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe the comparative efficacy of drug and non-drug interventions for reducing symptoms of depression in people with dementia who experience depression as a neuropsychiatric symptom of dementia or have a diagnosis of a major depressive disorder.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and grey literature between inception and 15 October 2020.Eligibility criteria for study selectionRandomised trials comparing drug or non-drug interventions with usual care or any other intervention targeting symptoms of depression in people with dementia.Main outcome measuresPairs of reviewers screened studies, abstracted aggregate level data, and appraised risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool, which facilitated the derivation of standardised mean differences and back transformed mean differences (on the Cornell scale for depression in dementia) from bayesian random effects network meta-analyses and pairwise meta-analyses.ResultsOf 22 138 citations screened, 256 studies (28 483 people with dementia) were included. Missing data posed the greatest risk to review findings. In the network meta-analysis of studies including people with dementia without a diagnosis of a major depressive disorder who were experiencing symptoms of depression (213 studies; 25 177 people with dementia; between study variance 0.23), seven interventions were associated with a greater reduction in symptoms of depression compared with usual care: cognitive stimulation (mean difference -2.93, 95% credible interval -4.35 to -1.52), cognitive stimulation combined with a cholinesterase inhibitor (-11.39, -18.38 to -3.93), massage and touch therapy (-9.03, -12.28 to -5.88), multidisciplinary care (-1.98, -3.80 to -0.16), occupational therapy (-2.59, -4.70 to -0.40), exercise combined with social interaction and cognitive stimulation (-12.37, -19.01 to -5.36), and reminiscence therapy (-2.30, -3.68 to -0.93). Except for massage and touch therapy, cognitive stimulation combined with a cholinesterase inhibitor, and cognitive stimulation combined with exercise and social interaction, which were more efficacious than some drug interventions, no statistically significant difference was found in the comparative efficacy of drug and non-drug interventions for reducing symptoms of depression in people with dementia without a diagnosis of a major depressive disorder. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity precluded network meta-analysis of studies comparing the efficacy of interventions specifically for reducing symptoms of depression in people with dementia and a major depressive disorder (22 studies; 1829 patients).ConclusionsIn this systematic review, non-drug interventions were found to be more efficacious than drug interventions for reducing symptoms of depression in people with dementia without a major depressive disorder.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42017050130.

Project description:BackgroundMany treatments are currently available for amblyopic patients; although, the comparative efficacy of these therapies is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to establish the relative efficacy of these treatments for amblyopia.MethodsElectronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) were systematically searched from inception to Sep. 2019. Only Randomized clinical trials comparing any two or three of the following treatments were included: refractive correction (spectacles alone), patching of 2 h per day (patch 2H), patch 6H, patch 12H, patch 2H + near activities (N), patch 2H + distant activities (D), atropine (Atr) daily, Atr weekly, Atr weekly + plano lens over the sound eye (Plano), optical penalization and binocular therapy. The reviewers independently extracted the data according to the PRISMA guidelines; assessed study quality by Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. The primary outcome measure was the change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) expressed as log MAR lines. Direct comparisons and a Bayesian meta-analysis were performed to synthesize data.ResultsTwenty-three studies with 3279 patients were included. In the network meta-analysis, optical penalization was the least effective of all the treatments for the change of visual acuity, spectacles (mean difference [MD], 2.9 Log MAR lines; 95% credibility interval [CrI], 1.8-4.0), patch 2H (MD, 3.3; 95% CrI, 2.3-4.3), patch 6H (MD, 3.6; 95% CrI, 2.6-4.6), patch 12H (MD, 3.4; 95% CrI, 2.3-4.5), patch 2H + N (MD, 3.7; 95% CrI, 2.5-5.0), patch 2H + D (MD, 3.5; 95% CrI, 2.1-5.0), Atr daily (MD, 3.2; 95% CrI, 2.2-4.3), Atr weekly (MD, 3.2; 95% CrI, 2.2-4.3), Atr weekly + Plano (MD, 3.7; 95% CrI, 2.7-4.7), binocular therapy (MD, 3.1; 95% CrI, 2.0-4.2). The patch 6H and patch 2H + N were better than spectacles ([MD, 0.73; 95% Crl, 0.10-1.40]; [MD, 0.84; 95% CrI, 0.19-1.50]).ConclusionsThe NMA indicated that the efficacy of the most of the examined treatment modalities for amblyopia were comparable, with no significant difference. Further high quality randomized controlled trials are required to determine their efficacy and acceptability.Systematic review registrationCRD42019119843.