Uterotonic agents for first-line treatment of postpartum haemorrhage: a network meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Parry Smith WR
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8130992 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Uterotonic agents for first-line treatment of postpartum haemorrhage: a network meta-analysis.
Parry Smith William R WR Papadopoulou Argyro A Thomas Eleanor E Tobias Aurelio A Price Malcolm J MJ Meher Shireen S Alfirevic Zarko Z Weeks Andrew D AD Hofmeyr G Justus GJ Gülmezoglu Ahmet Metin AM Widmer Mariana M Oladapo Olufemi T OT Vogel Joshua P JP Althabe Fernando F Coomarasamy Arri A Gallos Ioannis D ID
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 20201124
<h4>Background</h4>Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), defined as a blood loss of 500 mL or more after birth, is the leading cause of maternal death worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that all women giving birth should receive a prophylactic uterotonic agent. Despite the routine administration of a uterotonic agent for prevention, PPH remains a common complication causing one-quarter of all maternal deaths globally. When prevention fails and PPH occurs, further administration of ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6494487 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6388086 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives:With bosutinib proven to be available for frontline treatment, there are currently four frontline treatments as well as an additional strategy with high-dose imatinib for newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Due to the lack of direct comparison of high-dose imatinib, dasatinib, nilotinib, and bosutinib, we summarized the evidence to indirectly compare the efficacy among these treatment options. Methods:In total, 14 randomized clinical trials including 5,630 patients were analyzed by direct and mixed-treatment comparisons. Outcomes assessed were the following: complete cytogenetic response at 12 months; major molecular response at 12, 24, and 36 months; deep molecular response at 12, 24, 36, and 60 months; early molecular response at 3 months; progression-free survival (PFS); overall survival (OS); and Grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs). Results:The Bayesian network meta-analysis demonstrated that high-dose imatinib was less effective than all new-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors and had a higher probability of Grade 3 or 4 AEs. For molecular response, 300 mg of nilotinib was likely to be the preferred frontline treatment, as demonstrated by higher response rates and faster, deeper, and longer molecular response. For PFS and OS, there were high likelihoods (79% and 74%, respectively) that 400 mg of nilotinib was the preferred option. For AEs, standard-dose imatinib has the highest probability (65%) of being the most favorable toxicity profile. Conclusion:Considering the efficacy and toxicity profile, it is not recommended to use high-dose imatinib for treatment. This analysis also showed that nilotinib has the highest probability to become the preferred frontline agents for treating CML.
| S-EPMC6163008 | biostudies-other
Project description:The rapid development of novel therapeutic options for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) has generated some uncertainty about the rational choice of the systemic upfront treatment. So far, a variety of therapeutic strategies have been investigated, including the combination of immunecheckpoint inhibitors and anti-VEGF. To identify the treatment that should be preferred as front-line approach, we compared the efficacy and toxicity of a variety of therapeutic strategies. With this aim, we performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. OS, PFS, ORR and tolerability outcomes were considered, and for each outcome the treatment ranking was evaluated by the surface under the cumulative rankings (SUCRAs). Combination of Camrelizumab + Rivoceranib scored the best in OS, followed by Sintilimab + Bevacizumab, whereas Lenvatinib + Pembrolizumab showed higher probability to be the best treatment in PFS and Sintilimab + Bevacizumab performed best in ORR. Finally, Durvalumab is the most tolerated treatment.
| S-EPMC10407140 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo assess the relative efficacy and safety of first-line systemic therapies in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.Experimental designA comprehensive literature review was conducted including MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials for phase II or III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to and including July 15, 2019. We included RCTs in which at least 1 intervention was either chemotherapeutic agents (such as fluorouracil, irinotecan, or oxaliplatin) or antibodies targeting angiogenesis (such as bevacizumab) or agents that act on the epidermal growth factor receptor pathway (such as cetuximab and panitumumab) or studies reported at least one of the following outcomes: overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and/or Grade 3 + adverse events (AEs). Using a random effect model, we performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to analyze the probability of optimal therapeutic regime obtained from direct comparisons with indirect evidences. We estimated hazard ratios for OS and PFS.ResultsA total of 30 RCTs comprising 12,146 mCRC patients with 25 different treatment strategies were included. The triple combination FOLFOXIRI [fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan] plus bevacizumab provided significant survival benefits with improved OS over all other treatments. The network meta-analysis also indicated a significant advantage of using FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab in comparison to other treatment strategies for PFS. Besides, FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab was associated with the well-tolerated adverse events.ConclusionsOur study supported the use of FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab as the best first-line regimen and potentially effective and safe strategy for the management of patients with mCRC.
| S-EPMC8474314 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundImatinib is the standard first-line treatment for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs); however, most patients eventually develop imatinib resistance, leading to considerable clinical challenges. Few direct comparisons have been made between different post-first-line therapies on clinical efficacy in advanced GIST following imatinib failure.MethodsDatabases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholars, and Cochrane Library from inception to February 2023 were retrieved for randomized controlled trials evaluating the clinical efficacy of different post-first-line agents for advanced GIST following imatinib failure. Network and conventional meta-analysis were carried out using Stata/MP 16.0.ResultsRipretinib showed significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) rates from the 2nd to the 12th month compared to placebo, while there was virtually no evidence that the rest active agents had a significant benefit at the 12th month. Masitinib, ripretinib, sunitinib, regorafenib, and pimitespib exhibited significantly longer median PFS than placebo, and pairwise comparisons indicated there were no significant differences among masitinib, ripretinib, and sunitinib. These post-first-line agents decreased the risk of disease progression or death by 65% (HR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.26-0.47) compared to placebo. Ripretinib and sunitinib came into effect earlier and exhibited more consistent overall survival (OS) rate improvements than masitinib and pimitespib, while pairwise comparisons revealed no significant differences in these four active agents concerning the improvement in OS rate. These post-first-line agents decreased the risk of death by 39% (HR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.44-0.83) over placebo for advanced GIST following imatinib failure.ConclusionThe active agents in our analysis as post-first-line therapies are able to provide superior clinical efficacy, with improved PFS rate and OS rate at certain time points, as well as absolute values of PFS and OS for advanced GIST. Ripretinib might be the optimal recommendation as a post-first-line treatment for advanced GIST following imatinib failure.
| S-EPMC10278495 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPostpartum haemorrhage (PPH) continues to stand as the primary cause of maternal morbidity and mortality post-delivery, with twin pregnancies carrying a heightened risk of PPH compared to singleton deliveries.ObjectivesTo investigate the incidence of primary PPH among twin pregnancies and report on maternal and peripartum characteristics within this population.MethodsA literature search was conducted using data from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science. The search aimed to identify studies concerning mothers with twin pregnancies and postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) from the inception of each respective database to June 8th, 2023. Pooled means and proportions were analyzed using the generic inverse variance method. This review was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (CRD42023427192).ResultsA total of 21 studies involving 23,330 twin pregnant patients were included. Incidence of PPH for vaginal delivery and Caesarean delivery (CS) was found to be 10.9% (95% CI: -0.017, 0.235, I2 = 96%) and 27.0% (95% CI: 0.180, 0.359, I2 = 99%) respectively. In vitro fertilization (IVF) was the most common conception method at 62.0% (95% CI: 0.448, 0.792, I2 = 100%) with 81.1% (95% CI: 0.708, 0.915, I2 = 100%) of twins being dichorionic diamniotic.ConclusionThis meta-analysis demonstrated more than one in ten vaginal deliveries and over one in four cesarean sections result in PPH for twin pregnancies. IVF is the predominant method of conception in this patient group and seems to contribute to subsequent PPH risk in specific mothers. While preliminary, these findings underscore the necessity for further well-designed and high-quality studies to validate these results.
| S-EPMC11451219 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEpithelial growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRis) and bevacizumab (BEV) are used in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared their relative efficacy on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of first-line RCTs comparing (1) EGFRis vs. BEV, with chemotherapy in both arms (2) EGFRis + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone, or (3) BEV + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone, using Cochrane methodology. Data on and PFS and OS were extracted using the Parmar method. Pairwise meta-analyses and Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMA) were conducted to estimate the direct, indirect and combined PFS and OS hazard ratios (HRs) comparing EGFRis to BEV.ResultsSeventeen RCTs contained extractable data for quantitative analysis. Combining direct and indirect data using an NMA did not show a statistical difference between EGFRis versus BEV (PFS HR = 1.11 (95% CR: 0.92-1.36) and OS HR = 0.91 (95% CR: 0.75-1.09)). Direct meta-analysis (3 RCTs), indirect (14 RCTs) and combined (17 RCTs) NMA of PFS HRs were concordant and did not show a difference between EGFRis and BEV. Meta-analysis of OS using direct evidence, largely influenced by one trial, showed an improvement with EGFRis therapy (HR = 0.79 (95% CR: 0.65-0.98)), while indirect and combined NMA of OS did not show a difference between EGFRis and BEV Successive inclusions of trials over time in the combined NMA did not show superiority of EGFRis over BEV.ConclusionsOur findings did not support OS or PFS benefits of EGFRis over BEV in first-line mCRC.
| S-EPMC4608731 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Guidelines for treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer recommend a second line based on Fluoropyrimidine (FP) alone or in combination with Oxaliplatin (OXA) or Irinotecan (IRI) after a first line treatment based on Gemcitabine (GEM). We conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare currently available therapies to treat metastatic pancreatic cancer in the second line, considering as efficacy measures overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). Published randomized trials were identified using electronic databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ and American Society of clinical oncology). 8 studies met the inclusion criteria for a total of 1,587 patients and 7 different therapeutic schemes. The results suggested that the use of IRI-FP-Folinic Acid scheme in the second-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer may offer a benefit in terms of OS and PFS for patients not previously treated with these drugs.
| S-EPMC6049864 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMetastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) is an aggressive histological subtype with poor prognosis. Several first-line treatments are currently available for mTNBC. This study conducted a network meta-analysis to compare these first-line regimens and to determine the regimen with the best efficacy.MethodsA systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Bases, and minutes of major conferences was performed. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) were analyzed via network meta-analysis using the R software (R Core Team, Vienna, Austria). The efficacy of the treatment regimens was compared using hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals.ResultsA total of 29 randomized controlled trials involving 4607 patients were analyzed. The ranking was based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve. Network meta-analysis results showed that cisplatin combined with nab-paclitaxel or paclitaxel was superior to docetaxel plus capecitabine in terms of PFS and ORR. For programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) and breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutation-positive tumors, atezolizumab/pembrolizumab combined with nab-paclitaxel and talazoparib was superior to docetaxel plus capecitabine. No significant difference was observed among the treatments in OS. Neutropenia, diarrhea, and fatigue were common serious adverse events.ConclusionCisplatin combined with nab-paclitaxel or paclitaxel is the preferred first-line treatment for mTNBC. For PD-L1 and BRCA mutation-positive tumors, atezolizumab/pembrolizumab combined with nab-paclitaxel and talazoparib is an effective treatment option. Neutropenia, diarrhea, and fatigue are frequently occurring serious adverse events.
| S-EPMC11002666 | biostudies-literature