-
1.
Fluvastatin for lowering lipids.
Adams, SP, Sekhon, SS, Tsang, M, Wright, JM
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2018;(3):CD012282
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Fluvastatin is thought to be the least potent statin on the market, however, the dose-related magnitude of effect of fluvastatin on blood lipids is not known. OBJECTIVES Primary objectiveTo quantify the effects of various doses of fluvastatin on blood total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL cholesterol), high-density lipoprotein (HDL cholesterol), and triglycerides in participants with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease.Secondary objectivesTo quantify the variability of the effect of various doses of fluvastatin.To quantify withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAEs) in randomised placebo-controlled trials. SEARCH METHODS The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to February 2017: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2017, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1946 to February Week 2 2017), MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, Embase (1974 to February Week 2 2017), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, CDSR, DARE, Epistemonikos and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised placebo-controlled and uncontrolled before and after trials evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of fluvastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks in participants of any age with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for studies to be included, and extracted data. We entered data from placebo-controlled and uncontrolled before and after trials into Review Manager 5 as continuous and generic inverse variance data, respectively. WDAEs information was collected from the placebo-controlled trials. We assessed all trials using the 'Risk of bias' tool under the categories of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other potential biases. MAIN RESULTS One-hundred and forty-five trials (36 placebo controlled and 109 before and after) evaluated the dose-related efficacy of fluvastatin in 18,846 participants. The participants were of any age with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease, and fluvastatin effects were studied within a treatment period of three to 12 weeks. Log dose-response data over doses of 2.5 mg to 80 mg revealed strong linear dose-related effects on blood total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol and a weak linear dose-related effect on blood triglycerides. There was no dose-related effect of fluvastatin on blood HDL cholesterol. Fluvastatin 10 mg/day to 80 mg/day reduced LDL cholesterol by 15% to 33%, total cholesterol by 11% to 25% and triglycerides by 3% to 17.5%. For every two-fold dose increase there was a 6.0% (95% CI 5.4 to 6.6) decrease in blood LDL cholesterol, a 4.2% (95% CI 3.7 to 4.8) decrease in blood total cholesterol and a 4.2% (95% CI 2.0 to 6.3) decrease in blood triglycerides. The quality of evidence for these effects was judged to be high. When compared to atorvastatin and rosuvastatin, fluvastatin was about 12-fold less potent than atorvastatin and 46-fold less potent than rosuvastatin at reducing LDL cholesterol. Very low quality of evidence showed no difference in WDAEs between fluvastatin and placebo in 16 of 36 of these short-term trials (risk ratio 1.52 (95% CI 0.94 to 2.45). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Fluvastatin lowers blood total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and triglyceride in a dose-dependent linear fashion. Based on the effect on LDL cholesterol, fluvastatin is 12-fold less potent than atorvastatin and 46-fold less potent than rosuvastatin. This review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with fluvastatin because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in 56% of the placebo-controlled trials.
-
2.
Efficacy of sequential therapies with sorafenib-sunitinib versus sunitinib-sorafenib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Wen, T, Xiao, H, Luo, C, Huang, L, Xiong, M
Oncotarget. 2017;(12):20441-20451
Abstract
The most efficient sequence of targeted agents for metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients has yet to be identified. Whether the sequence of sorafenib and sunitinib really matters is controversial and not answered clearly until now. This meta-analysis aims to estimate the efficacy of receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors sorafenib-sunitinib and sunitinib-sorafenib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma, on the outcome of first-line progression-free survival, second-line progression-free survival, total progression-free survival and overall survival.We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrails.gov for eligible studies. Data were analyzed using random or fixed effects model depending on the heterogeneity of the eligible studies. Heterogeneity across studies were analyzed using Q and I2 statistics.Of 902 identified studies, ten were qualified in our analysis (N = 1732 patients). Sorafenib-sunitinib yielded no statistically significant benefit in first-line progression-free survival (fixed effects; HR = 0.95; 95%CI 0.75-1.21; p = 0.702), total progression-free survival (random effects; HR = 0.92; 95%CI 0.71-1.19; p = 0.531) and overall survival (fixed effects; HR = 0.89; 95%CI 0.72-1.09; p = 0.257), compared with sunitinib-sorafenib. Second-line progression-free survival was longer for sorafenib-sunitinib than sunitinib-sorafenib (fixed effects; HR = 0.55; 95%CI 0.44-0.68; p = 0.000).Sequential therapies with sorafenib and sunitinib is well tolerated and efficient in mRCC. However, there are no evidence supported that sorafenib-sunitinib has the superiority to sunitinib-sorafenib in sequence. The ideal sequence of targeted agents requires further elucidation.
-
3.
Treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a network meta-analysis.
Rochwerg, B, Neupane, B, Zhang, Y, Garcia, CC, Raghu, G, Richeldi, L, Brozek, J, Beyene, J, Schünemann, H
BMC medicine. 2016;:18
Abstract
BACKGROUND Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is an interstitial lung disease associated with high morbidity and mortality. Effective treatments for IPF are limited. Several recent studies have investigated novel therapeutic agents for IPF, but very few have addressed their comparative benefits and harms. METHODS We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the effects of different treatments for IPF on mortality and serious adverse events (SAEs). We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to August 2015. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach served to assess the certainty in the evidence of direct and indirect estimates. We calculated the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for each treatment. We included parallel group RCTs, including factorial designs, but excluded quasi-randomized and cross-over trials. Studies were only included if they involved adult (≥18 years of age) patients with IPF as defined by the 2011 criteria and examined one of the 10 interventions of interest (ambrisentan, bosentan, imatinib, macitentan, N-acetylcysteine, nintedanib, pirfenidone, sildenafil, prednisone/azathioprine/N-acetylcysteine triple therapy, and vitamin K antagonist). RESULTS A total of 19 RCTs (5,694 patients) comparing 10 different interventions with placebo and an average follow-up period of 1 year fulfilled the inclusion criteria. SUCRA analysis suggests nintedanib, pirfenidone, and sildenafil are the three treatments with the highest probability of reducing mortality in IPF. Indirect comparison showed no significant difference in mortality between pirfenidone and nintedanib (NMA OR, 1.05; 95% CrI, 0.45-2.78, moderate certainty of evidence), pirenidone and sildenafil (NMA OR, 2.26; 95% CrI, 0.44-13.17, low certainty of evidence), or nintedanib and sildenafil (NMA OR 2.40; 95% CrI, 0.47-14.66, low certainty of evidence). Sildenafil, pirfenidone, and nintedanib were ranked second, fourth, and sixth out of 10 for SAEs. CONCLUSION In the absence of direct comparisons between treatment interventions, this NMA suggests that treatment with nintedanib, pirfenidone, and sildenafil extends survival in patients with IPF. The SAEs of these agents are similar to the other interventions and include mostly dermatologic and gastrointestinal manifestations. Head-to-head comparisons need to confirm these findings.
-
4.
A Pooled Analysis of the Effects of Conjugated Estrogens/Bazedoxifene on Lipid Parameters in Postmenopausal Women From the Selective Estrogens, Menopause, and Response to Therapy (SMART) Trials.
Stevenson, JC, Chines, A, Pan, K, Ryan, KA, Mirkin, S
The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism. 2015;(6):2329-38
Abstract
CONTEXT Menopausal lipid profile changes may increase cardiovascular risk. The effects of conjugated estrogens (CE)/bazedoxifene (BZA), an approved menopausal therapy, on lipids have not been fully characterized. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of CE/BZA on lipids in the Selective estrogens, Menopause, And Response to Therapy (SMART) trials for ≥ 1 year. DESIGN This was a pooled analysis of 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled phase 3 trials (SMART-1, -4, and -5). SETTING The study was conducted in North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific Region, and Latin America. PARTICIPANTS Participants were nonhysterectomized postmenopausal women aged 40 to 75 years, not taking lipid-lowering medications (N = 2796). INTERVENTIONS Treatments were CE 0.45 mg/BZA 20 mg, CE 0.625 mg/BZA 20 mg, and PBO. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The adjusted mean percentage changes from baseline in total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides, and the LDL-C/HDL-C ratio at 12 and 24 months were measured. RESULTS At 12 months, CE 0.45 mg/BZA 20 mg and CE 0.625 mg/BZA 20 mg produced significant (P < .001) improvements vs PBO in TC (-4.20% and -4.37% vs -0.88%), LDL-C (-9.33% and -10.78% vs -1.08%), HDL-C (4.59% and 6.21% vs 1.30%), and the LDL-C/HDL-C ratio (-11.59% and -14.00% vs -0.84%). Triglycerides were significantly (P < .001) increased from baseline with both doses vs PBO (15.13% and 15.74% vs 4.43%). Similar trends (all P < .001) were seen at 24 months when SMART-1 and SMART-4 were pooled (TC: -3.25% and -3.13% vs 0.95%; LDL-C: -7.47% and -8.08% vs 2.95%; HDL-C: 5.91% and 7.19% vs 1.72%; triglycerides: 18.87% and 18.82% vs 6.49%; and the LDL-C/HDL-C ratio: -10.05% and -12.82% vs 2.56%). CONCLUSIONS CE/BZA was associated with mostly favorable changes in lipid parameters for up to 2 years in nonhysterectomized postmenopausal women.
-
5.
Comparing new treatments for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis--a network meta-analysis.
Loveman, E, Copley, VR, Scott, DA, Colquitt, JL, Clegg, AJ, O'Reilly, KM
BMC pulmonary medicine. 2015;:37
Abstract
BACKGROUND The treatment landscape for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, a devastating lung disease, is changing. To investigate the effectiveness of treatments for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis we undertook a systematic review, network meta-analysis and indirect comparison. METHODS We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane library for relevant studies. Randomised controlled trials of pirfenidone, nintedanib or N-acetylcysteine were eligible. Predefined processes for selecting references, extracting data and assessing study quality were applied. Our network meta-analysis of published data used a fixed effect model. For forced vital capacity measures a standardised mean difference approach was used and converted to odds ratios for interpretation. RESULTS Of 1076 references, 67 were retrieved and 11 studies included. Studies were of reasonable size, populations were similar, and the overall quality was good. Only two treatments, pirfenidone (odds ratio 0.62, 95% credible interval 0.52, 0.74) and nintedanib (0.41, 95% credible interval 0.34, 0.51) produced a statistically significant slowing in the rate of forced vital capacity decline compared with placebo. In an indirect comparison, results indicate that nintedanib is statistically significantly better than pirfenidone in slowing forced vital capacity decline (odds ratio 0.67, 95% credible interval 0.51, 0.88). Results were stable in scenario analysis and random effects models. Indirect comparisons of mortality were not statistically significant between nintedanib and pirfenidone. CONCLUSIONS Two treatments show beneficial effects and when compared indirectly nintedanib appears to have superior benefit on forced vital capacity. Limitations to indirect comparisons should be considered when interpreting these results, however, our findings can be useful to inform treatment decisions.
-
6.
Risk of gastrointestinal events with sorafenib, sunitinib and pazopanib in patients with solid tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.
Santoni, M, Conti, A, De Giorgi, U, Iacovelli, R, Pantano, F, Burattini, L, Muzzonigro, G, Berardi, R, Santini, D, Cascinu, S
International journal of cancer. 2014;(4):763-73
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Gastrointestinal (GI) events have been described with sorafenib, sunitinib and pazopanib in cancer patients. We performed an up-to-date meta-analysis to determine the incidence and relative risk (RR) in patients with cancer treated with these agents. PubMed databases were searched for articles published till May 2013. Eligible studies were selected according to PRISMA statement. Summary incidence, RR, and 95% CIs were calculated using random-effects or fixed-effects models based on the heterogeneity of selected studies. A total of 6,447 patients were available for the meta-analysis; 2,260 had renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and 4,187, 1,691 non-small cell lung cancers, 599 hepatocellular cancers, 1,066 breast cancers, 165 neuroendocrine tumors, 304 gastrointestinal stromal tumors and 362 soft tissue sarcomas. Diarrhea was the most common GI event. When stratified by tumor type (RCC vs. non-RCC), the difference among the incidences of GI events was significant for diarrhea (p < 0.001) and vomiting (p = 0.006), that resulted higher in RCC patients. In RCC patients, sorafenib registered the lower incidence and RR of all grades GI events. The difference was statistically significant for sorafenib versus sunitinib-related all and high-grade events (p < 0.001) and for sorafenib versus pazopanib all grades GI events (p < 0.001) and high-grade anorexia (p < 0.001). Treatment with VEGFR TKIs sorafenib, sunitinib and pazopanib is associated with a significant increase in the risk of GI events in patients with cancer, and frequent clinical monitoring should be emphasized when managing these three and newer VEGFR TKIs.
-
7.
Risk of bleeding with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine-kinase inhibitors sunitinib and sorafenib: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.
Je, Y, Schutz, FA, Choueiri, TK
The Lancet. Oncology. 2009;(10):967-74
Abstract
BACKGROUND Sunitinib and sorafenib are oral vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine-kinase inhibitors used in various cancers. Bleeding has been described with these agents, although the overall risk remains unclear. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to calculate the incidence and relative risk associated with use of sunitinib and sorafenib. METHODS We searched PubMed (from January, 1966, to April, 2009) and meeting proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society of Medical Oncology (2004-09) for relevant clinical trials. Eligible studies included phase 2 and 3 trials and expanded-access programmes. Statistical analyses were done to calculate summary incidences, relative risks, and 95% CI, using random-effects or fixed-effects models based on the heterogeneity of included studies. FINDINGS 23 trials were selected for the meta-analysis, yielding a total of 6779 patients. The incidence of bleeding events (all grades) was 16.7% (95% CI 12.7-21.5), and that of high-grade events was 2.4% (1.6-3.9). The relative risk of all-grade bleeding events associated with sunitinib and sorafenib (for randomised controlled trials only) was 2.0 (1.14-3.49; p=0.015). Our analysis was also stratified by underlying malignant disease (renal-cell carcinoma vs non-renal-cell carcinoma) and agent used, but no differences were recorded. INTERPRETATION Treatment with the VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors sunitinib and sorafenib is associated with a significant increase in risk of bleeding. FUNDING None.
-
8.
The effect of fluvastatin on cardiac outcomes in patients with moderate to severe renal insufficiency: a pooled analysis of double-blind, randomized trials.
Holdaas, H, Wanner, C, Abletshauser, C, Gimpelewicz, C, Isaacsohn, J
International journal of cardiology. 2007;(1):64-74
Abstract
BACKGROUND Individuals with chronic kidney disease are at high risk for cardiovascular disease and have a high prevalence of hyperlipidemia. Lipid-lowering therapy may help patients with renal disease reduce their risk for cardiovascular events. METHODS A pooled analysis of 30 completed clinical trials compared the efficacy and safety profiles of fluvastatin in subgroups of patients with moderate to severe renal insufficiency (creatinine clearance < 50 ml/min) and patients with normal renal function or mild renal insufficiency (creatinine clearance > or = 50 ml/min). RESULTS Changes in lipid parameters with fluvastatin treatment were similar for the compared patient subgroups. Fluvastatin treatment reduced combined cardiac death and myocardial infarction by 41% compared with placebo among patients with moderate to severe renal insufficiency (hazard ratio, 0.59; p=0.007) and by 30% among patients with normal renal function or mild renal insufficiency (hazard ratio, 0.70; p=0.009). The relative reduction in the risk of major adverse cardiac events, a composite endpoint comprising cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and coronary intervention procedures, with fluvastatin treatment was not significant for patients with moderate to severe renal insufficiency (hazard ratio, 0.83; p=0.18); in this patient subgroup, the incidence of coronary intervention procedures was similar between treatment groups. The safety profiles were similar for fluvastatin- and placebo-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS The results of this pooled analysis indicate that fluvastatin is safe and effective for reducing cardiac death and nonfatal myocardial infarction in patients with moderate to severe renal insufficiency. Fluvastatin did not reduce the rate of coronary intervention procedures.
-
9.
Fluvastatin treatment is not associated with an increased incidence of cancer.
Stein, EA, Corsini, A, Gimpelewicz, CR, Bortolini, M, Gil, M
International journal of clinical practice. 2006;(9):1028-34
Abstract
Concerns regarding a potential link between statin treatment and increased risk of cancer were raised following the increased cancer incidence observed in patients treated with pravastatin in the Cholesterol and Recurrent Events and Pravastatin in Elderly Individuals at Risk of Vascular Disease studies. The aim of the present study was to investigate the risk of cancer associated with fluvastatin treatment in clinical trials. A pooled analysis of all available, randomised, placebo-controlled trials with fluvastatin with a minimum treatment period of 24 weeks was performed. The cancer incidences were compared in 3512 patients receiving fluvastatin, 20-80 mg/day, and 3289 patients receiving placebo. Overall, fewer patients were diagnosed with cancer in the fluvastatin group compared with the placebo group [220/3512 (6.3%) vs. 263/3289 (8.0%) respectively; p = 0.0309]. Cox regression analysis, adjusted for baseline covariates and stratified by study, revealed a hazard ratio for first cancer diagnosis of 0.812 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.667-0.989; p = 0.037] for fluvastatin compared with placebo. No significant differences were observed in the incidence of cancers by site, with the exception of non-melanoma skin cancer (103 vs. 125 cases in the fluvastatin and placebo groups respectively; p = 0.047). Cox regression analysis showed that there was no association between baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and the risk of developing cancer (hazard ratio 0.998, 95% CI 0.995-1.000; p = 0.107). In conclusion, fluvastatin treatment is not associated with an increased risk of cancer compared with placebo in clinical trials, independent of patient age, treatment duration and baseline cholesterol levels.
-
10.
Review article: the safety profile of tegaserod.
Schoenfeld, P
Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics. 2004;:25-30
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Gastrointestinal symptoms are the most common side-effects of tegaserod therapy. In data pooled from Phase III randomized controlled trials in patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation, diarrhoea was reported by 8.8% of patients treated with tegaserod 6 mg b.d. vs. 3.8% of patients treated with placebo. Similar rates were observed in international post-US marketing randomized controlled trials. In most patients, tegaserod-induced diarrhoea was mild and transient. In randomized controlled trials, it did not elicit fluid or electrolyte disturbances, and fewer than 3% of irritable bowel syndrome patients discontinued tegaserod due to diarrhoea. The incidence of other gastrointestinal symptoms (e.g. abdominal pain, nausea and flatulence) was similar in tegaserod-treated and placebo-treated patients. Pooled analysis of Phase III and post-US marketing randomized controlled trials did not demonstrate significant differences between tegaserod-treated and placebo-treated patients in the incidence of abdominal/pelvic surgery. No episodes of ischaemic colitis were reported in tegaserod-using patients in any Phase III or post-marketing randomized controlled trials, and post-marketing surveillance indicated that the rate of ischaemic colitis in tegaserod-using patients was lower than that in non-tegaserod-using patients. Pooled analysis of Phase III randomized controlled trials demonstrated an increase in the incidence of headaches in tegaserod-treated (6 mg b.d.) vs. placebo-treated patients (15% vs. 12.3%, respectively; P < 0.05), although post-US marketing randomized controlled trials did not demonstrate this increase. Other extra-gastrointestinal adverse events occurred with similar frequency in tegaserod-treated and placebo-treated patients. Tegaserod-treated patients in randomized controlled trials did not demonstrate significant prolongation of the QTc interval or cardiac arrhythmias compared with placebo-treated patients. In summary, tegaserod exhibits a favourable safety and tolerability profile in irritable bowel syndrome patients based on data from clinical trials.