Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in the treatment of adult gliomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab (BEV) in patients with glioma.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Participants

Adults aged 18 years and above, whose histology was confirmed to be malignant glioma.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

The main indicators included progression-free survival (PFS) rate and overall survival (OS) rate, and the secondary indicators were adverse reactions.

Results

A total of 11 clinical centre trials were included in this study for meta-analysis, including 2392 patients. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the median PFS rate of the BEV group was significantly higher than that of the non-BEV group (p<0.00001). When comparing PFS between two groups, we found that the PFS in the BEV group was higher than that in the non-BEV group at 6 months (OR 3.31, 95% CI 2.74 to 4.00, p<0.00001), 12 months (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.70 to 2.49, p<0.00001) and 18 months (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.69, p=0.03). But at 24 months (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.37, p=0.47), there was no significant difference between the two groups. At 30 months (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.97, p=0.04), the PFS of the BEV group was lower than that of the non-BEV group. Moreover, The results showed that BEV had no significant effect on improving OS, but the adverse reaction in BEV group was significantly higher than that in non-BEV group.

Conclusion

The evidence suggests that BEV can significantly prolong the PFS of patients with glioma within 18 months and shorten the PFS of patients after 30 months. This limitation may be related to the subgroup of patients, the change of recurrence mode, the optimal dose of drug, the increase of hypoxia, the enhancement of invasiveness and so on. Therefore, it is necessary to carry out more samples and higher quality large-scale research in the future.

SUBMITTER: Wang H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8640637 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Vancomycin and teicoplanin are the glycopeptides currently in use for the treatment of infections caused by invasive beta-lactam-resistant gram-positive organisms. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that have compared vancomycin and teicoplanin administered systemically for the treatment of suspected or proven infections. A comprehensive search of trials without year, language, or publication status restrictions was performed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled by using the fixed-effect model (RRs of >1 favor vancomycin). Twenty-four trials were included. All-cause mortality was similar overall (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.21), and there was no significant heterogeneity. In trials that used adequate allocation concealment, the results favored teicoplanin (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.06), while in trials with unknown methods or inadequate concealment, the results favored vancomycin (RR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.27 to 10.30). The latter trials might have recruited more severely ill patients. No other variable affected the RRs for mortality, including the assessment of glycopeptides administered empirically or for proven infections, neutropenia, the participant's age, and drug dosing. There were no significant differences between teicoplanin and vancomycin with regard to clinical failure (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.05), microbiological failure (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.65), and other efficacy outcomes. Lower RRs (in favor of teicoplanin) for clinical failure were observed with a lower risk of bias and when treatment was initiated for infections caused by gram-positive organisms rather than empirically. Total adverse events (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.74), nephrotoxicity (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.61), and red man syndrome were significantly less frequent with teicoplanin. Teicoplanin is not inferior to vancomycin with regard to efficacy and is associated with a lower adverse event rate than vancomycin.

Project description:BackgroundAntipsychotics are widely used in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), but there has been no comprehensive meta-analytic assessment that examined their use as monotherapy and adjunctive therapy.MethodsA systematic review and a meta-analysis were conducted on randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) that reported on the efficacy and safety/tolerability of antipsychotics for the treatment of adults with MDD. Data of both monotherapy and adjunctive antipsychotic use were extracted, but analyzed separately using a random-effects model. Co-primary outcomes were study-defined-treatment response and intolerability-related discontinuation. We also illustrated the risk/benefit balance of antipsychotics for MDD, using two-dimensional graphs representing the primary efficacy and safety/tolerability outcome. Secondary outcomes included psychopathology, remission, all-cause-discontinuation, inefficacy-related discontinuation, and adverse events.ResultsForty-five RCTs with 12 724 patients were included in the analysis. In monotherapy (studies = 13, n = 4375), amisulpride [1.99 (1.55-2.55)], sulpiride [1.50 (1.03-2.17)], and quetiapine [1.48 (1.23-1.78)] were significantly superior to placebo regarding treatment response. However, intolerability-related discontinuations were significantly higher compared to placebo with amisulpride and quetiapine. In adjunctive therapy (studies = 32, n = 8349), ziprasidone [1.80 (1.07-3.04)], risperidone [1.59 (1.19-2.14)], aripiprazole [1.54 (1.35-1.76)], brexpiprazole [1.41 (1.21-1.66)], cariprazine [1.27 (1.07-1.52)], and quetiapine [1.23 (1.08-1.41)] were significantly superior to placebo regarding treatment response. However, of these antipsychotics that were superior to placebo, only risperidone was equivalent to placebo regarding discontinuation due to intolerability, while the other antipsychotics were inferior.ConclusionResults suggest that there are significant differences regarding the risk/benefit ratio among antipsychotics for MDD, which should inform clinical care.

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the safety of intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) as a monotherapy and to evaluate the relationship between quality of treatment and adverse events.Data sourcesCochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, MEDLINE in-process, Ovid EMBASE and Toxicology Literature Online (TOXLINE) from January 2009 to May 2012. Studies included in an earlier systematic review were also assessed for inclusion.Study eligibility criteria, participants and interventionsRandomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled trials or observational studies including ?10 participants reporting adverse events data following IVB monotherapy as a primary treatment in patients (aged 18?years or more) with any eye condition were included.Study appraisal and synthesis methodsStudy selection was undertaken independently by a minimum of two reviewers using pre-defined criteria. Data abstraction and quality assessment were performed by one reviewer, and then checked by a second reviewer. Study quality was assessed for only RCTs in accordance to the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Additional items relating to safety data were also assessed. Results were tabulated or meta-analysed as appropriate.Results22 RCTs and 67 observational studies were included. Only two RCTs reported valid safety data. Rates of serious adverse events following treatment were low. There was insufficient data to explore the relationship between the incidence of adverse events and quality of IVB injection.LimitationsA majority of relevant existing studies were characterised by small sample sizes, unclear diagnostic criteria and reporting of safety outcomes.Conclusions and implications of key findingsAvailable evidence demonstrates low rates of serious local and systemic adverse events following treatment. However, the role of IVB quality in the incidence of adverse events remains unclear. Robust evidence is needed to examine the relationship between the incidence of adverse events and variables such as injection techniques, pre-existing risk factors (eg, immunosuppression, cross-contamination) and quality of IVB treatment.