1.
Efficacy and safety of pharmacological cachexia interventions: systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Saeteaw, M, Sanguanboonyaphong, P, Yoodee, J, Craft, K, Sawangjit, R, Ngamphaiboon, N, Shantavasinkul, PC, Subongkot, S, Chaiyakunapruk, N
BMJ supportive & palliative care. 2021;(1):75-85
Abstract
AIMS: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated benefits of pharmacological interventions for cachexia in improving weight and appetite. However, comparative efficacy and safety are not available. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for cachexia. METHODS PubMed, EmBase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for RCTs until October 2019. Key outcomes were total body weight (TBW) improvement, appetite (APP) score and serious adverse events. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. NMA was performed to estimate weight gain and APP score increase at 8 weeks, presented as mean difference (MD) or standardised MD with 95% CI. RESULTS 80 RCTs (10 579 patients) with 12 treatments were included. Majority is patients with cancer (7220). Compared with placebo, corticosteroids, high-dose megestrol acetate combination (Megace_H_Com) (≥400 mg/day), medroxyprogesterone, high-dose megestrol acetate (Megace_H) (≥400 mg/day), ghrelin mimetic and androgen analogues (Androgen) were significantly associated with MD of TBW of 6.45 (95% CI 2.45 to 10.45), 4.29 (95% CI 2.23 to 6.35), 3.18 (95% CI 0.94 to 5.41), 2.66 (95% CI 1.47 to 3.85), 1.73 (95% CI 0.27 to 3.20) and 1.50 (95% CI 0.56 to 2.44) kg. For appetite improvement, Megace_H_Com, Megace_H and Androgen significantly improved standardised APP score, compared with placebo. There is no significant difference in serious adverse events from all interventions compared with placebo. CONCLUSIONS Our findings suggest that several pharmacological interventions have potential to offer benefits in treatment of cachexia especially Megace_H and short-term use corticosteroids. Nonetheless, high-quality comparative studies to compare safety and efficacy are warranted for better management of cachexia.
2.
The effects of megestrol acetate on nutrition, inflammation and quality of life in elderly haemodialysis patients.
Zheng, Z, Chen, J, He, D, Xu, Y, Chen, L, Zhang, T
International urology and nephrology. 2019;(9):1631-1638
Abstract
PURPOSE Malnutrition, inflammation and poor quality of life are prevalent among elderly haemodialysis patients. Megestrol acetate (MA) is a synthetic progestin that is widely used to increase appetite and weight in various clinical settings. MA has been indicated to be effective in improving quality of life in patients with cancers. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MA in treating malnourished elderly haemodialysis patients. METHODS A randomized controlled study involving 46 hypoalbuminemia haemodialysis patients aged 70 years or older was conducted. The patients in MA-treated group (n = 23) took 160 mg of MA daily, while those in control group (n = 23) were enrolled without any intervention. Anthropometric parameters and laboratory results, including height, dry weight, body mass index, and modified subjective global assessment score as well as serum albumin, triglyceride, total cholesterol, hsCRP, IL-1b and IL-6 concentrations were measured in all patients before and after the intervention. Health-related quality of life was also evaluated using the KDQOL-SF 1.3. RESULTS In the MA-treated group, a total of 18 patients finished the therapy over a 3-month period. Appetite was reported as improved by 15 patients, and a statistically significant increase was observed in dry weight (53.36 ± 6.15 vs. 54.24 ± 6.32, P < 0.01) and serum albumin concentration (29.05 ± 3.91 vs. 37.67 ± 4.88, P < 0.01) in the MA-treated group compared to those of the control group. The quality of life in both the physical domain (46.73 ± 18.17 vs. 63.37 ± 22.35, P < 0.01) and the mental domain (50.28 ± 20.36 vs. 68.02 ± 25.48, P < 0.01) was also improved in the same group. There was no significant change in the inflammatory marker concentrations after the intervention. No serious or unexpected adverse events were observed except that one patient who withdrew due to excessive fluid gain between haemodialysis sessions. CONCLUSION Our data suggest that MA can be effective in improving nutritional status and quality of life by increasing appetite in elderly haemodialysis patients with acceptable side effects; however, MA might not ameliorate inflammation.