-
1.
Evaluation of effect of empirical attack-preventive immunotherapies in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders: An update systematic review and meta -analysis.
Ma, J, Yu, H, Wang, H, Zhang, X, Feng, K
Journal of neuroimmunology. 2022;:577790
Abstract
BACKGROUND Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) is an inflammatory disease of the central nervous system, which mainly involves the optic nerve and spinal cord. Frequent relapse can accumulate the degree of disability. At present, the main treatment options are immunosuppressants and blood purification. The first-line immunosuppressants for NMOSD are mainly rituximab (RTX), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and azathioprine (AZA). Therefore, we designed this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and effect of the above three drugs in the treatment of NMOSD patients. METHODS The following Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) and related entry terms are used to search English literature in PubMed, MEDLINE and CENTRAL databases, respectively. MeSH include: Neuromyelitis optic and Rituximab or Azathioprine or Mycophenolate Mofetil; entry terms include: NMO Spectrum Disorder, NMO Spectrum Disorders, Neuromyelitis Optica (NMO) Spectrum Disorder, Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorders, Devic Neuromyelitis Optica, Neuromyelitis Optica, Devic, Devic's Disease, Devic Syndrome, Devic's Neuromyelitis Optica, Neuromyelitis Optica (NMO) Spectrum Disorders, CD20 Antibody, Rituximab CD20 Antibody, Mabthera, IDEC-C2B8 Antibody, GP2013, Rituxan, Mycophenolate Mofetil, Mofetil, Mycophenolate, Mycophenolic Acid, Morpholinoethyl Ester, Cellcept, Mycophenolate Sodium, Myfortic, Mycophenolate Mofetil Hydrochloride, Mofetil Hydrochloride, Mycophenolate, RS 61443, RS-61443, RS61443, azathioprine sodium, azathioprine sulfate (note: literature retrieval operators "AND" "OR" "NOT" are used to link MeSH with Entry Terms.) The literature search found a total of 3058 articles about rituximab, mycophenolate mofetil and azathioprine in the treatment of NMOSD, 63 of which were included in this study after a series of screening. RESULTS 930,933,732 patients with NMOSD were enrolled, who had been treated with MMF, AZA and RTX, respectively. The pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) of EDSS before and after RTX treated was -0.58 (95%CI: -0.72, -0.44) (I2 = 0%, p = 0.477), before and after MMF treated was -0.47 (95%CI: -0.73, -0.21) (I2 = 85.6%, p<0.001), before and after AZA treated was -0.41 (95%CI: -0.60, -0.23) (I2 = 65.4%, p<0.001). there was no significant difference in the effect of the three drugs on reducing EDSS scores (RTX vs MMF, p = 0.522; RTX vs AZA, p = 0.214; MMF vs AZA, p = 0.732). The pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) of ARR before and after RTX treated was -1.45 (95%CI: -1.72, -1.18) (I2 = 72.4%, p<0.001), before and after MMF treated was -1.14 (95%CI: -1.31, -0.97) (I2 = 54.5%, p<0.001), before and after AZA treated was -1.11 (95%CI: -1.39, -0.83) (I2 = 83.4%, p<0.001). RTX significantly reduced ARR compared with the other two drugs (RTX vs MMF, p = 0.039; RTX vs AZA, p = 0.049; MMF vs AZA, p = 0.436). CONCLUSION The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis showed that the treatment of NMOSD patients with RTX, MMF and AZA is associated with decreased number of relapses and disability improvement as well, and there was no significant difference in the effect of the three drugs on reducing EDSS scores, but RTX significantly reduced ARR compared with the other two drugs.
-
2.
Enteral immunonutrition versus enteral nutrition for patients undergoing oesophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Li, XK, Zhou, H, Xu, Y, Cong, ZZ, Wu, WJ, Luo, J, Jiang, ZS, Shen, Y
Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery. 2020;(6):854-862
Abstract
OBJECTIVES According to retrospective studies, oesophageal carcinoma is the second deadliest gastrointestinal cancer after gastric cancer. Enteral immunonutrition (EIN) has been increasingly used to enhance host immunity and relieve the inflammatory response of patients undergoing oesophagectomy; however, conclusions across studies remain unclear. We aimed to evaluate the effect of EIN on the clinical and immunological outcomes of patients undergoing oesophagectomy. METHODS Four electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library) were used to search articles in peer-reviewed, English-language journals. The mean difference, relative risk or standard mean difference with 95% confidence interval were calculated. Heterogeneity was assessed by the Cochran's Q test and I2 statistic combined with the corresponding P-value. The analysis was carried out with RevMan 5.3. RESULTS Six articles were finally included, with a total of 320 patients with oesophageal cancer. The meta-analysis results showed that EIN did not improve clinical outcomes (such as infectious complications, pneumonia, surgical site infection, anastomotic leak and postoperative hospital stay) or immune indices [referring to C-reactive protein, interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, tumour necrosis factor-α]. Descriptive analysis suggested that EIN also increased the serum concentrations of IgG and the percentage of the B-cell fraction. Thus, its impact on IL-8 and IL-6 remains inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS The early-stage impact of EIN on immunological status in patients undergoing oesophagectomy is still unclear. According to the results of this meta-analysis, whether EIN could improve the clinical outcomes or biological status after oesophagectomy compared to standard enteral nutrition is uncertain. Since the impact of EIN is unclear, current guidelines that strongly advise the use of EIN should be changed, as the utility of EIN is very uncertain. More appropriately powered clinical studies are warranted to confirm its effectiveness.
-
3.
Interventions to Prevent Nonmelanoma Skin Cancers in Recipients of a Solid Organ Transplant: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Chung, EYM, Palmer, SC, Strippoli, GFM
Transplantation. 2019;(6):1206-1215
Abstract
BACKGROUND Organ transplant recipients are at high risk of developing skin cancer. The benefits and harms of interventions to prevent nonmelanoma skin cancer in solid organ transplant recipients have not been summarized. METHODS We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL through April 2018. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool, and evidence certainty was evaluated using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation process. Prespecified outcomes were nonmelanoma skin cancer, clearance and prevention of keratotic skin lesions, and intervention-specific adverse events. RESULTS Ninety-two trials (20 012 participants) were included. The evaluated treatments were cancer-specific interventions (acitretin, imiquimod, photodynamic therapy, nicotinamide, topical diclofenac, and selenium) and immunosuppression regimes (azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, calcineurin inhibitors, mammalian target of rapamycin [mTOR] inhibitors, belatacept, induction agents, and withdrawal of calcineurin inhibitors or corticosteroids). Effects on nonmelanoma skin cancer were uncertain for photodynamic therapy (3 trials, 93 participants, risk ratio [RR] 1.42 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.65-3.11]; low certainty evidence), nicotinamide (2 trials, 60 participants), acitretin (2 trials, 61 participants), and imiquimod (1 trial, 20 participants) compared to control. mTOR inhibitors probably reduced skin cancer compared to calcineurin inhibitors (12 trials, 2225 participants, RR 0.62 [95% CI, 0.45-0.85]; moderate certainty evidence). Photodynamic therapy may cause pain at the treatment site (4 trials, 95 patients, RR 17.09 [95% CI, 4.22-69.26]; low certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS There is limited evidence for the efficacy and safety of specific treatments to prevent nonmelanoma skin cancers among solid organ transplant recipients.
-
4.
Systematic review with meta-analysis: high prevalence and cost of continued aminosalicylate use in patients with ulcerative colitis escalated to immunosuppressive and biological therapies.
Ma, C, Guizzetti, L, Cipriano, LE, Parker, CE, Nguyen, TM, Gregor, JC, Chande, N, Feagan, BG, Jairath, V
Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics. 2019;(4):364-374
Abstract
BACKGROUND Aminosalicylates are the most frequently prescribed treatment for ulcerative colitis (UC). In the absence of empirical evidence, clinicians are uncertain whether to continue aminosalicylates in patients with UC after escalating therapy. AIMS To quantify concomitant aminosalicylate use in UC randomised clinical trials (RCTs), identify factors associated with their use, and estimate treatment costs of concomitant aminosalicylate therapy. METHODS MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to 1 March 2017 for placebo-controlled RCTs of immunosuppressants, biologics, or oral small molecules in adults with UC. The proportion of patients prescribed concomitant aminosalicylates at trial entry was pooled using a random-effects model. Meta-regression was performed to assess trial-level factors associated with aminosalicylate use. Treatment costs were estimated using 2018 formulary data from five Canadian provinces. RESULTS Thirty-two trials were included (23 induction only, nine induction, and maintenance trials). The pooled proportion of patients co-prescribed aminosalicylates was 80.7% (95% CI 75.5%-85.1%), with considerable observed heterogeneity (I2 = 95%). In univariable meta-regression, aminosalicylate use was not associated with trial design, setting, year of publication, disease severity, disease duration, or drug class. The estimated direct annual treatment cost of concomitant aminosalicylates is ~$20 million for the Canadian UC population, assuming conservative estimates of UC prevalence, aminosalicylate use and dose, and the lowest cost formulation. CONCLUSIONS Approximately 80% of UC patients entering clinical trials of immunosuppressants, biologics, or oral small molecules continue to use aminosalicylates. An RCT is needed to inform the benefits and harms of continuing vs stopping aminosalicylates in patients escalating therapy.
-
5.
A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and network meta-analysis on the efficacy between different regimens based on Tripterygium wilfordii Hook F in patients with primary nephrotic syndrome.
Wang, XB, Dai, EL, Xue, GZ, Ma, RL
Medicine. 2018;(27):e11282
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND The present study aims to comprehensively determine the efficacy of different therapy regimens based on Tripterygium wilfordii Hook F (TwHF) for patients with primary nephrotic syndrome (PNS) using network meta-analysis method. METHODS Seven electronic databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the differences between different therapy regimens based on TwHF for patients with PNS. The risk of bias in included RCTs was evaluated according to the Cochrane Handbook version 5.2.0. Network meta-analysis was performed to compare different regimens. Primary outcomes were complete remission rate and total remission rate. The secondary outcomes were hr urinary protein excretion, serum albumin, serum creatinine, and urea nitrogen. Data analysis was performed using R software. RESULTS A total of 40 studies involving 2846 patients with PNS were included. Compared with prednisone, the improvement in total remission rate and complete remission rate was associated with TwHF alone (odds ratio [OR] = 4.80, 95% credible intervals [CrI]: 2.20-10.00; OR = 6.30, 95% CrI: 2.90-13.00, respectively), TwHF+prednisone (OR = 2.10, 95% CrI: 1.30-3.50; OR = 2.40, 95% CrI: 1.50-3.80, respectively), TwHF+CPA (OR = 12.00, 95% CrI: 1.10-150.00; OR = 16.00, 95% CrI: 1.60-170.00, respectively), and TwHF+Cyclosporine A (OR = 28.00, 95% CrI: 3.20-250.00; OR = 35.00, 95% CrI: 4.50-270.00, respectively). Compared with TwHF alone, TwHF+prednisone showed less benefit in improving total remission rate and complete remission rate (OR = 0.44, 95% CrI: 0.21-0.91; OR = 0.38, 95% CrI: 0.19-0.77, respectively). TwHF alone, TwHF+prednisone could significantly reduce hr urinary protein excretion (MD = -0.69, 95% CrI: -1.30 to -0.14; MD = -1.00, 95% CrI: -1.90 to -0.14, respectively) and increase serum albumin (MD = 5.90, 95% CrI: 2.50-9.30; MD = 3.40, 95% CrI: 1.30-5.50, respectively) when compared to prednisone alone. TwHF alone showed significant reduction in serum creatinine when compared to CPA (MD = -19.00, 95% CrI: -37.00 to -0.56). CONCLUSIONS TwHF alone, the addition TwHF to prednisone showed more benefit in improving total and complete remission rate, hr urinary protein excretion, serum albumin, and serum creatinine.