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 |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
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: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: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
Project description:BackgroundOvarian cancer (OC) is the 5th leading cause of cancer-related deaths around the world, and several chemotherapy regimens have been applied in the treatment of OC. We aim to compare toxicities of different chemotherapy regimens in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) using network meta-analysis.MethodsLiterature research in Cochrane Library, PubMed, and EMBASE was performed up to November 2015. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of different chemotherapy regimens were included. Network meta-analysis combined direct and indirect evidence to assess pooled odds ratios (ORs) and draw the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curves.ResultsThirteen eligible RCTs were included in this network meta-analysis, including 8 chemotherapy regimens (paclitaxel + carboplatin [PC], pegylated liposomal doxorubicin [PLD] + carboplatin, carboplatin, gemcitabine + carboplatin, paclitaxel, PC + epirubicin, PC + topotecan, docetaxel + carboplatin). Gemcitabine + carboplatin regimen exerted higher incidence of anemia when compared with carboplatin and paclitaxel regimens. The incidence of febrile neutropenia of gemcitabine + carboplatin regimen was higher than that of PC, PLD + carboplatin, carboplatin, and PC + topotecan regimens. Topotecan PC + epirubicin regimen had a higher toxicity, comparing with PC, PLD + carboplatin, and PC + topotecan regimens. As for thrombocytopenia, gemcitabine + carboplatin chemotherapy regimen produced an obviously higher toxicity than PC and carboplatin. As for nausea, PLD + carboplatin chemotherapy regimen had a significantly higher toxicity than that of carboplatin chemotherapy regimen. Moreover, when compared with PC and carboplatin chemotherapy regimens, the toxicity of PC + epirubicin was greatly higher to patients with AOC.ConclusionThe nonhematologic toxicity of PLD + carboplatin regimen was higher than other regimens, which was clinically significant for the treatment of AOC.
| S-EPMC5266167 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe effectiveness of triplet therapy compared with androgen pathway inhibitor (API) doublets in a heterogeneous patient population with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) is unknown.ObjectiveTo assess the comparative effectiveness of contemporary systemic treatment options for patients with mCSPC across clinically relevant subgroups.Data sourcesFor this systematic review and meta-analysis, Ovid MEDLINE and Embase were searched from each database's inception (MEDLINE, 1946; Embase, 1974) through June 16, 2021. Subsequently, a "living" auto search was created with weekly updates to identify new evidence as it became available.Study selectionPhase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing first-line treatment options for mCSPC.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data from eligible RCTs. The comparative effectiveness of different treatment options was assessed with a fixed-effect network meta-analysis. Data were analyzed on July 10, 2022.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), grade 3 or higher adverse events, and health-related quality of life.ResultsThis report included 10 RCTs with 11 043 patients and 9 unique treatment groups. Median ages of the included population ranged from 63 to 70 years. Current evidence for the overall population suggests that the darolutamide (DARO) triplet (DARO + docetaxel [D] + androgen deprivation therapy [ADT]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.81), as well as the abiraterone (AAP) triplet (AAP + D + ADT; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.95), are associated with improved OS compared with D doublet (D + ADT) but not compared with API doublets. Among patients with high-volume disease, AAP + D + ADT may improve OS compared with D + ADT (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.95) but not compared with AAP + ADT, enzalutamide (E) + ADT, and apalutamide (APA) + ADT. For patients with low-volume disease, AAP + D + ADT may not improve OS compared with APA + ADT, AAP + ADT, E + ADT, and D + ADT.Conclusions and relevanceThe potential benefit observed with triplet therapy must be interpreted with careful accounting for the volume of disease and the choice of doublet comparisons used in the clinical trials. These findings suggest an equipoise to how triplet regimens compare with API doublet combinations and provide direction for future clinical trials.
| S-EPMC9982744 | biostudies-literature