Efficacy and Safety of Treatments for Patients With Portal Hypertension and Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Yao Q
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8446274 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the clinical and haemodynamic effects of carvedilol for patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension. DESIGN:A systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES:We searched PubMed, Cochrane library databases, EMBASE and the Science Citation Index Expanded through December 2015. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. OUTCOME MEASURE:We calculated clinical outcomes (all-cause mortality, bleeding-related mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding) as well as haemodynamic outcomes (hepatic venous pressure (HVPG) reduction, haemodynamic response rate, post-treatment arterial blood pressure (mean arterial pressure; MAP) and adverse events). RESULTS:12 RCTs were included. In 7 trials that looked at haemodynamic outcomes compared carvedilol versus propranolol, showing that carvedilol was associated with a greater reduction (%) of HVPG within 6?months (mean difference -8.49, 95% CI -12.36 to -4.63) without a greater reduction in MAP than propranolol. In 3 trials investigating differences in clinical outcomes between carvedilol versus endoscopic variceal band ligation (EVL), no significant differences in mortality or variceal bleeding were demonstrated. 1 trial compared clinical outcomes between carvedilol versus nadolol plus isosorbide-5-mononitrate (ISMN), and showed that no significant difference in mortality or bleeding had been found. 1 trial comparing carvedilol versus nebivolol showed a greater reduction in HVPG after 14?days follow-up in the carvedilol group. CONCLUSIONS:Carvedilol may be more effective in decreasing HVPG than propranolol or nebivolol and it may be as effective as EVL or nadolol plus ISMN in preventing variceal bleeding. However, the overall quality of evidence is low. Further large-scale randomised studies are required before we can make firm conclusions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42015020542.
| S-EPMC4861122 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundAlthough various third-line treatments of advanced gastric cancer (AGC) significantly improved the overall survival, the optimal regimen has not been determined by now. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of multiple third-line treatments of AGC via integrated analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) to provide valuable evidence for the optimal third-line systemic therapy for AGC.MethodsBy searching the databases of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from Jan 01, 2005 to Dec 31, 2020, we included phase II/III randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of the third-line treatments for AGC to perform NMA. The main outcomes for NMA were median overall survival (mOS), median progression-free survival (mPFS), disease control rate (DCR) and adverse events (AEs). We also included phase IB/II non-RCTs and II/III RCTs of the third-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for integrated analysis for pooled mOS (POS), pooled mPFS (PPFS) and other outcomes.ResultsEight phase II/III RCTs and 2 ICIs-related phase IB/II non-RCTs were included for analysis, involving 9 treatment regimens and 3012 AGC patients. In terms of mOS, apatinib (hazard ratio [HR] 0.61, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.48-0.78) and nivolumab (HR 0.62, 95% CrI 0.51-0.76) were the most effective treatments compared with placebo. Apatinib also significantly improved mPFS versus placebo (HR 0.38, 95% CrI 0.29-0.49). Nivolumab ranked first among all regimens for 1-year OS rate and achieved the best OS in patients with HER-2 positive tumor, patients with gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer and patients without gastrectomy history. TAS-102 (OR 7.46, 95% CrI 4.61-12.51) was the most toxic treatment in terms of AEs of grade 3 and higher (≥3 AEs). Pembrolizumab was more likely to cause immune related adverse event. Finally, the POS, pooled 1-year OS rate, pooled ORR and PPFS of AGC patients treated with third-line ICIs were 5.1 months, 25%, 10% and 1.71 months respectively.ConclusionsApatinib and nivolumab are the most effective treatments for the third-line treatment of AGC in contrast to the third-line chemotherapy. For AGC patients with HER-2 positive tumor, patients with GEJ cancer and patients without gastrectomy history, ICIs could be the optimal third-line treatment choice.
| S-EPMC8570109 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSleep disorders are the main non-motor characteristics of Parkinson's disease (PD). The quality of life is significantly impacted by rapid eye movement sleep behaviour disorder (RBD). It is not clearly evidenced in the literature that some medications can reduce the dream activities of patients with PD and RBD and improve sleep quality. And, they have side effects that may increase the severity of this disease. To further understand which medication has better efficacy and fewer adverse effects for patients with PD and RBD, it is necessary to perform a network meta-analysis.Methods and analysisThis protocol is performed accordingly to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols and the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook.A thorough literature selection will be conducted up to September 2021 using PubMed, Cochrane Library (The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) and Embase. We will not only include randomised controlled trials, but prospective, retrospective cohort, case-control, nested case-control, case-cohort, cross-sectional and case series. We will use the Cochrane Collaboration tool to assess the risk of bias. Pairwise and network meta-analyses will be conducted using the R netmeta package and Stata V.14.0. The relative ranking probability of the best intervention will be estimated using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve. Additionally, sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, quality assessment and publication bias analysis will be performed.Ethics and disseminationNo research ethics approval is required for this systematic review, as no confidential patient data will be used. We will disseminate our findings through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations, and our review will support development of a BMJ Rapid Recommendations providing contextualised clinical guidance based on this body of evidence.Prospero registration numberCRD42020206958.
| S-EPMC8685944 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAt present, there are many commonly used moxibustion methods in clinical practice, but it is unclear which moxibustion is more suitable for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR), so we used a network meta-analysis to analyze the effectiveness of various moxibustion types in the treatment of AR.MethodsWe searched 8 databases for comprehensive inclusion of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for moxibustion in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. The search time was from the beginning of database establishment to January 2022. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to analyze the risk of bias of the included RCTs. Bayesian network meta-analysis of the included RCT was performed using the R software GEMTC and the RJAGS package.ResultsA total of 38 RCTs were included, involving 4257 patients and 9 types of moxibustion. The network meta-analysis results revealed that heat-sensitive moxibustion (HSM) not only has the best effect in terms of effective rate (Odd ratio [OR]: 32.77, 95% Credible intervals [CrIs]: 1.86-1360.2) among the nine types of moxibustion, but also has good effect in improving the quality of life score (standard mean differences [SMD]: 0.6, 95% CrIs: 0.07-1.29). In terms of improving IgE and VAS scores, various types of moxibustion were comparable to the efficacy of western medicine.ConclusionThe results showed that HSM was the most effective treatment for AR compared with other types of moxibustion. Therefore, it can be regarded as a complementary and alternative therapy for AR patients with poor effects of traditional treatment and patients who are susceptible to adverse reactions of western medicine.
| S-EPMC9981372 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Diabetic retinopathy is the main cause of visual impairment and blindness. The proliferative diabetic retinopathy at the severe stage of diabetic retinopathy is more harmful to vision and even leads to total blindness. To evaluate the visual acuity, central retinal thickness, and adverse reactions of various treatments for proliferative diabetic retinopathy through a systematic network meta-analysis. The relevant research published in English or Chinese from January 1, 2011, to February 1, 2021, was systematically searched by using PubMed, science network, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and other electronic databases. A total of 15 studies were selected, including 3,222 eyes of PDR patients. Our results show that in terms of visual score improvement, ranibizumab alone (69.90%) and laser + ranibizumab (67.90%) are the best. However, if the groups were grouped again according to the dose and times of ranibizumab injection, the results showed that 0.5 mg ranibizumab injection per month (58.0%) had the best effect on vision improvement. For the change of central retinal thickness, the thickness decreased the most after the laser combined with ranibizumab (96.5%). After the same subgroup analysis, the results were further refined into the best effect of laser combined with 0.3 mg ranibizumab per quarter (72.7%). In addition, our analysis of complications also showed that the overall incidence of adverse reactions of PRP (11.1 ± 12.4, %) was greater than that of ranibizumab (10.6 ± 13.0, %). However, more high-quality randomized controlled trials with longer follow-up using standard methods are still needed to verify the correlation.
| S-EPMC8630659 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: We provided a comprehensive evaluation of efficacy of available treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: We searched for candidate COVID-19 studies in WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database up to August 19, 2021. Randomized controlled trials for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients published on peer-reviewed journals were included, regardless of demographic characteristics. Outcome measures included mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Bayesian network meta-analysis with fixed effects was conducted to estimate the effect sizes using posterior means and 95% equal-tailed credible intervals (CrIs). Odds ratio (OR) was used as the summary measure for treatment effect. Bayesian hierarchical models were used to estimate effect sizes of treatments grouped by the treatment classifications. Results: We identified 222 eligible studies with a total of 102,950 patients. Compared with the standard of care, imatinib, intravenous immunoglobulin and tocilizumab led to lower risk of death; baricitinib plus remdesivir, colchicine, dexamethasone, recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor and tocilizumab indicated lower occurrence of mechanical ventilation; tofacitinib, sarilumab, remdesivir, tocilizumab and baricitinib plus remdesivir increased the hospital discharge rate; convalescent plasma, ivermectin, ivermectin plus doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, nitazoxanide and proxalutamide resulted in better viral clearance. From the treatment class level, we found that the use of antineoplastic agents was associated with fewer mortality cases, immunostimulants could reduce the risk of mechanical ventilation and immunosuppressants led to higher discharge rates. Conclusions: This network meta-analysis identified superiority of several COVID-19 treatments over the standard of care in terms of mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Tocilizumab showed its superiority compared with SOC on preventing severe outcomes such as death and mechanical ventilation as well as increasing the discharge rate, which might be an appropriate treatment for patients with severe or mild/moderate illness. We also found the clinical efficacy of antineoplastic agents, immunostimulants and immunosuppressants with respect to the endpoints of mortality, mechanical ventilation and discharge, which provides valuable information for the discovery of potential COVID-19 treatments.
| S-EPMC8506153 | 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:BackgroundDepressive symptoms play an essential role in cognition decline, while the benefit and acceptability of treatments for depressive symptoms in cognitive impairment are still unknown.ObjectiveTo comprehensively evaluate the comparative efficacy and acceptability of treatments for depressive symptoms in cognitive impairment based on the quantitative Bayesian network meta-analysis method (NMA).MethodWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from inception until August 2022 to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating treatments for depressive symptoms in cognitive impairment. Efficacy was evaluated by the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD), the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), and the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) for depression; the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) and the Cohen-Mansfeld Agitation Inventory (CMAI) for behavior; and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) for cognition. Safety was evaluated by total adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, diarrhea, headache, and nausea.ResultsIn this study, 13,043 participants from 107 RCTs were included, involving 28 treatments and the discontinuation of antidepressants. On CSDD, aerobic exercise (MD -4.51, 95%CrI -8.60 to -0.37), aripiprazole (MD -1.85, 95%CrI -3.66 to -0.02), behavioral training (MD -1.14, 95%CrI -2.04 to -0.34), electrical current stimulation (MD -3.30, 95%CrI -5.94 to -0.73), massage (MD -12.67, 95%CrI -14.71 to -10.59), music therapy (MD -2.63, 95%CrI -4.72 to -0.58), and reminiscence therapy (MD -2.34, 95%CrI -3.51 to -1.25) significantly outperformed the placebo. On MMSE, cognitive stimulation therapy (MD 1.42, 95%CrI 0.49 to 2.39), electrical current stimulation (MD 4.08, 95%CrI 1.07 to 7.11), and reminiscence therapy (MD 1.31, 95%CrI 0.04 to 2.91) significantly outperformed the placebo. Additionally, no treatments showed a significantly higher risk than the placebo.ConclusionOur NMAs indicated that non-pharmacological interventions were more efficacious and safe than pharmacological treatments for reducing depressive symptoms as well as improving cognitive impairment. Electrical current stimulation, aerobic exercise, and reminiscence therapy could be first recommended considering their beneficial performance on both depression and cognition. Hence, non-pharmacological treatments deserve more attention and extensive application and should at least be considered as an alternative or assistance in clinical settings.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021239621, identifier: CRD42021239621.
| S-EPMC9790988 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To compare the efficacy and safety of current treatments in diabetic macular edema (DME).PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL were systematically reviewed for randomized controlled trials of current treatments in DME through August 2015. Data on the mean change of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) were extracted, and adverse events (AEs) were collected.A total of 21 trials were included in our network meta-analysis. Intravitreal ranibizumab improved BCVA most significantly (OR: +7.01 95%CI (2.56 to 11.39)) in 6 months and intravitreal aflibercept (+8.19 (5.07 to 11.96)) in 12 months. Intravitreal triamcinolone combined with LASER decreased CMT most significantly (-111.34 (-254.61 to 37.93)) in 6 months and intravitreal aflibercept (-110.83 (-190.25 to -35.27)) in 12 months. Compared with the relatively high rate of ocular AEs in the groups with administration of steroids, systematic AEs occurred more frequently in the groups with vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors involved.Our analysis confirms that intravitreal aflibercept is most favorable with both BCVA improvement and CMT decrease than other current therapies in the management of DME within 12 months. Vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors for DME should be used with caution due to systematic AEs. Combined intravitreal triamcinolone with LASER has a stronger efficacy in decreasing CMT than the other interventions in the early stage after injection. More high-quality randomized controlled trials will be necessary.
| S-EPMC4951132 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the efficacy and safety of different endoscopic surgical treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia. DESIGN:Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES:A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases from inception to 31 March 2019. STUDY SELECTION:Randomised controlled trials comparing vapourisation, resection, and enucleation of the prostate using monopolar, bipolar, or various laser systems (holmium, thulium, potassium titanyl phosphate, or diode) as surgical treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia. The primary outcomes were the maximal flow rate (Qmax) and international prostate symptoms score (IPSS) at 12 months after surgical treatment. Secondary outcomes were Qmax and IPSS values at 6, 24, and 36 months after surgical treatment; perioperative parameters; and surgical complications. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two independent reviewers extracted the study data and performed quality assessments using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The effect sizes were summarised using weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and odds ratios for binary outcomes. Frequentist approach to the network meta-analysis was used to estimate comparative effects and safety. Ranking probabilities of each treatment were also calculated. RESULTS:109 trials with a total of 13?676 participants were identified. Nine surgical treatments were evaluated. Enucleation achieved better Qmax and IPSS values than resection and vapourisation methods at six and 12 months after surgical treatment, and the difference maintained up to 24 and 36 months after surgical treatment. For Qmax at 12 months after surgical treatment, the best three methods compared with monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) were bipolar enucleation (mean difference 2.42 mL/s (95% confidence interval 1.11 to 3.73)), diode laser enucleation (1.86 (-0.17 to 3.88)), and holmium laser enucleation (1.07 (0.07 to 2.08)). The worst performing method was diode laser vapourisation (-1.90 (-5.07 to 1.27)). The results of IPSS at 12 months after treatment were similar to Qmax at 12 months after treatment. The best three methods, versus monopolar TURP, were diode laser enucleation (mean difference -1.00 (-2.41 to 0.40)), bipolar enucleation (0.87 (-1.80 to 0.07)), and holmium laser enucleation (-0.84 (-1.51 to 0.58)). The worst performing method was diode laser vapourisation (1.30 (-1.16 to 3.76)). Eight new methods were better at controlling bleeding than monopolar TURP, resulting in a shorter catheterisation duration, reduced postoperative haemoglobin declination, fewer clot retention events, and lower blood transfusion rate. However, short term transient urinary incontinence might still be a concern for enucleation methods, compared with resection methods (odds ratio 1.92, 1.39 to 2.65). No substantial inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence was detected in primary or secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION:Eight new endoscopic surgical methods for benign prostatic hyperplasia appeared to be superior in safety compared with monopolar TURP. Among these new treatments, enucleation methods showed better Qmax and IPSS values than vapourisation and resection methods. STUDY REGISTRATION:CRD42018099583.
| S-EPMC7223639 | biostudies-literature