1.
Efficacy and safety of apatinib alone or apatinib plus paclitaxel/docetaxel versus paclitaxel/docetaxel in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis.
Li, Z, Liu, Z, Wu, Y, Li, H, Sun, Z, Han, C, Zhang, X, Zhang, J
Thoracic cancer. 2021;(21):2838-2848
Abstract
BACKGROUND To investigate the efficacy and safety of apatinib alone or apatinib plus paclitaxel/docetaxel versus paclitaxel/docetaxel in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) through pooling of open published data. METHODS The electronic databases of Medline (1960-2021.5), Cochrane central register of controlled trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE(1980-2021.5) and Wan fang (1986-2021.5) were systematically searched by two reviewers to identify the relevant clinical trials related to the above subject. The objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) and drug relevant adverse reactions were pooled and demonstrated by risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). The statistical heterogeneity across studies was assessed by I-square test. The publication bias was evaluated by Egger's line regression test and demonstrated by Begg's funnel plot. RESULTS Eleven prospective studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results indicated that the ORR (RR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.32-2.00, p < 0.05) and DCR (RR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.18-1.41, p < 0.05) of apatinib alone or apatinib plus paclitaxel/docetaxel was significantly higher than that of the paclitaxel/docetaxel group for advanced NSCLC, respectively. The drug-related adverse reaction was not statistically different between apatinib alone or apatinib plus paclitaxel/docetaxel with regard to the hand-foot syndrome, gastrointestinal reaction, thrombocytopenia, anemia and leukocytopenia (pall > 0.05) except for hypertension (RR = 3.60, 95% CI: 1.26-10.31, p < 0.05). Subgroup analysis also indicated that the hypertension and hand-foot syndrome in apatinib + paclitaxel/docetaxel were higher than that of the paclitaxel/docetaxel group with a statistical difference (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS Apatinib alone or apatinib plus paclitaxel/docetaxel was superior to paclitaxel/docetaxel for ORR and DCR. However, combined treatment with apatinib appears to increase the risk of a patient developing an adverse reaction, especially hypertension and hand-foot syndrome.
2.
Comparative efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib and peficitinib as monotherapy for active rheumatoid arthritis.
Ho Lee, Y, Gyu Song, G
Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics. 2020;(4):674-681
Abstract
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE Several clinical trials have attempted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib and peficitinib as monotherapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but their relative efficacy and safety as monotherapy remain unclear due to the lack of data from head-to-head comparison trials. The relative efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib and peficitinib as monotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were assessed. METHODS We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine direct and indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and examine the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib and peficitinib as monotherapy relative to placebo in patients with RA. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Five RCTs comprising 1547 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with placebo, tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib and peficitinib as monotherapy showed a significantly higher American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response rate. Peficitinib 150 mg monotherapy showed the highest ACR20 response rate (odds ratio, 17.24.39; 95% credible interval, 6.57-51.80). The ranking probability based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve indicated that peficitinib 150 mg had the highest probability of being the best treatment for achieving the ACR20 response rate, followed by peficitinib 100 mg, filgotinib 200 mg, filgotinib 100 mg, tofacitinib 5 mg, upadacitinib 15 mg, baricitinib 4 mg and placebo. However, the number of patients who experienced serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the JAK inhibitors, except for tofacitinib 5 mg, and placebo. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION All five JAK inhibitors-tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib and peficitinib-were efficacious monotherapy interventions for active RA, and differences were noted in their efficacy and safety in monotherapy.
3.
Cerivastatin for lowering lipids.
Adams, SP, Tiellet, N, Alaeiilkhchi, N, Wright, JM
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2020;(1):CD012501
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cerivastatin was the most potent statin until it was withdrawn from the market due to a number of fatalities due to rhabdomyolysis, however, the dose-related magnitude of effect of cerivastatin on blood lipids is not known. OBJECTIVES Primary objective To quantify the effects of various doses of cerivastatin on the surrogate markers: LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and triglycerides in children and adults with and without cardiovascular disease. The aim of this review is to examine the pharmacology of cerivastatin by characterizing the dose-related effect and variability of the effect of cerivastatin on surrogate markers. Secondary objectives To quantify the effect of various doses of cerivastatin compared to placebo on withdrawals due to adverse effects. To compare the relative potency of cerivastatin with respect to fluvastatin, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin for LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and triglycerides. SEARCH METHODS The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for RCTs up to March 2019: CENTRAL (2019, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov.We also searched the European Patent Office, FDA.gov, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, and contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA RCTs and controlled before-and-after studies evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of cerivastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks in participants of any age with and without cardiovascular disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for trials to be included and extracted data. We entered data from RCTs and controlled before-and-after studies into Review Manager 5 as continuous and generic inverse variance data respectively. We collected information on withdrawals due to adverse effects from the RCTs. 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 Fifty trials (19 RCTs and 31 before-and-after studies) evaluated the dose-related efficacy of cerivastatin in 12,877 participants who had their LDL cholesterol measured. The participants were of any age with and without cardiovascular disease and the trials studied cerivastatin effects within a treatment period of three to 12 weeks. Cerivastatin 0.025 mg/day to 0.8 mg/day caused LDL cholesterol decreases of 11.0% to 40.8%, total cholesterol decreases of 8.0% to 28.8% and triglyceride decreases of 9.0% to 21.4%. We judged the certainty of evidence for these effects to be high. Log dose-response data over doses of 2.5 mg to 80 mg revealed strong linear dose-related effects on LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol and triglycerides. When compared to fluvastatin, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin, cerivastatin was about 250-fold more potent than fluvastatin, 20-fold more potent than atorvastatin and 5.5-fold more potent than rosuvastatin at reducing LDL cholesterol; 233-fold more potent than fluvastatin, 18-fold more potent than atorvastatin and six-fold more potent than rosuvastatin at reducing total cholesterol; and 125-fold more potent than fluvastatin, 11-fold more potent than atorvastatin and 13-fold more potent than rosuvastatin at reducing triglycerides. There was no dose-related effect of cerivastatin on HDL cholesterol, but overall cerivastatin increased HDL cholesterol by 5%. There was a high risk of bias for the outcome withdrawals due to adverse effects, but a low risk of bias for the lipid measurements. Withdrawals due to adverse effects were not different between cerivastatin and placebo in 11 of 19 of these short-term trials (risk ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.74). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, and triglyceride lowering effect of cerivastatin was linearly dependent on dose. Cerivastatin log dose-response data were linear over the commonly prescribed dose range. Based on an informal comparison with fluvastatin, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin, cerivastatin was about 250-fold more potent than fluvastatin, 20-fold more potent than atorvastatin and 5.5-fold more potent than rosuvastatin in reducing LDL cholesterol, and 233-fold greater potency than fluvastatin, 18-fold greater potency than atorvastatin and six-fold greater potency than rosuvastatin at reducing total cholesterol. This review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with cerivastatin because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in 42% of the RCTs.