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.
Appetite stimulants for people with cystic fibrosis.
Chinuck, R, Dewar, J, Baldwin, DR, Hendron, E
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2014;(7):CD008190
Abstract
BACKGROUND Chronic loss of appetite in cystic fibrosis concerns both individuals and families. Appetite stimulants have been used to help cystic fibrosis patients with chronic anorexia attain optimal body mass index and nutritional status. However, these may have adverse effects on clinical status. OBJECTIVES The aim of this review is to systematically search for and evaluate evidence on the beneficial effects of appetite stimulants in the management of CF-related anorexia and synthesize reports of any side-effects. SEARCH METHODS Trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, handsearching reference lists and contacting local and international experts.Last search of online databases: 01 April 2014.Last search of the Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register: 08 April 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of appetite stimulants, compared to placebo or no treatment for at least one month in adults and children with cystic fibrosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias within eligible trials. Meta-analyses were performed. MAIN RESULTS Three trials (total of 47 recruited patients) comparing appetite stimulants (cyproheptadine hydrochloride and megesterol acetate) to placebo were included; the numbers of adults or children within each trial were not always reported. The risk of bias of the included trials was graded as moderate.A meta-analysis of all three trials showed appetite stimulants produced a larger increase in weight z score at three months compared to placebo, mean difference 0.61 (95% confidence interval 0.29 to 0.93) (P < 0.001) (n = 40) with no evidence of a difference in effect between two different appetite stimulants. One of these trials also reported a significant weight increase with megesterol acetate compared to placebo at six months (n = 17). The three trials reported no significant differences in forced expiratory volume at one second (per cent predicted) between the appetite stimulant groups and placebo at follow up, with durations ranging from two to nine months. A meta-analysis of two trials showed a significantly higher proportion of patients reporting increased appetite, odds ratio 45.25 (95% confidence interval 3.57 to 573.33) (P = 0.003) (n = 23), but the frequency of reported side effects was undetermined. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS In the short term (six months) in adults and children, appetite stimulants improved only two of the outcomes in this review - weight (or weight z score) and appetite; and side effects were insufficiently reported to determine the full extent of their impact. Whilst the data may suggest the potential use of appetite stimulants in treating anorexia in adults and children with cystic fibrosis, this is based upon moderate quality data from a small number of trials and so this therapy cannot be conclusively recommended based upon the findings in the review. Clinicians need to be aware of the potential adverse effects of appetite stimulants and actively monitor any patients prescribed these medications accordingly.Research is needed to determine meaningful surrogate measures for appetite and define what constitutes quality weight gain. Future trials of appetite stimulants should use a validated measure of symptoms including a disease-specific instrument for measuring poor appetite. This review highlights the need for multicentred, adequately powered and well-designed trials to evaluate agents to safely increase appetite in people with cystic fibrosis and to establish the optimal mode of treatment.
3.
Effects of megestrol acetate in patients with cancer anorexia-cachexia syndrome--a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Leśniak, W, Bała, M, Jaeschke, R, Krzakowski, M
Polskie Archiwum Medycyny Wewnetrznej. 2008;(11):636-44
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Anorexia-cachexia syndrome (ACS) often occurs in patients with advanced cancer. OBJECTIVES To review the effect of megestrol acetate (MA) in patients with ACS. PATIENTS AND METHODS To identify eligible studies, systematic review by Lopez et al. (2004) was used, electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL) were searched and reference lists of included studies were reviewed. The studies were included in the review if they were randomized, enrolled patients with non-hormone-sensitive cancer and ACS and assessed the effects of MA compared with placebo, other drugs or different doses of MA. RESULTS The study population is characterized by high mortality and progressive weight loss irrespective of the treatment. Compared to placebo, the effect of MA on survival is similar, but MA increases appetite (number needed to treat [NNT]: 3) and leads to weight gain (NNT: 8) in more patients. The data on other aspects of the quality of life are limited. The comparison of MA and glucocorticosteroids showed no statistical difference in their effect on appetite and weight. CONCLUSIONS Compared to placebo, MA reduces the symptoms of ACS, with no effect on survival. The beneficial effect of MA on the overall quality of life has not been confirmed. In identified studies the effect of MA and glucocorticosteroids on anorexia and cachexia is similar. The estimation of the treatment utility in ACS depends on the weight attributed to discomfort caused by symptoms, adverse effects of the drugs and the treatment cost. Because of the low quality of the included studies a new randomized controlled trial is needed for valid assessment of the effects of MA.