Sequencing of systemic therapy in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

For patients with advanced or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), safe and effective therapies are urgently needed to improve their long-term prognosis. Although the guidelines recommend first-line treatments such as sorafenib, lenvatinib, and atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab (T+A) and second-line treatments such as regorafenib, the efficacy comparison between drugs is lacking, that is, a treatment is not recommended as the optimal or alternative choice for a specific patient population. Therefore, we will conduct a high-quality network meta-analysis based on Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to systematically evaluate and compare overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and serious adverse events (SAE) of different treatment protocols in the context of first-line and second-line therapies, which are critical for clinical decision making and prognostic improvement in advanced HCC patients. The studies of interest were Phase III RCTs evaluating the efficacy or safety of first- or second-line therapies in patients with unresectable or advanced HCC. Literature published in English from the four databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was comprehensively searched from the inception to May 23, 2022. Outcomes of interest included OS, PFS, ORR, and SAE. A league table was developed to show the results of the comparison between different treatments. A histogram of cumulative probability was drawn to discuss the ranking probability of treatments based on different outcomes. The effectiveness and safety of various treatments were comprehensively considered and the two-dimensional diagram was plotted to guide clinical practice. The Gemtc package in R Studio was used for network meta-analysis in a Bayesian framework. The results showed that HAIC-FO was superior to T+A regimen, regardless of OS, PFS or ORR. TACE combined with lenvatinib performed better than T+A in PFS, and ORR. In addition to the T+A regimen, Sintilimab combined with IBI305 and camrelizumab combined with apatinib were also associated with longer OS, PFS, and ORR, and their SAE incidence was not higher than that of T+A, especially for camrelizumab combined with apatinib, its safety was better than that of T+A regimen. There were no new treatments or combinations that were more effective than regorafenib. It was important to note that for PFS, the efficacy of apatinib and cabozantinib was not statistically different from that of regorafenib, so these two treatments could be used as alternative treatment options in cases where regorafenib was not tolerated or treatment failed. We conducted a network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of multiple treatment modalities by integrating the results of direct and indirect comparisons. This study included high-quality multicenter Phase III RCTs, collated and summarized all treatments involved in advanced or unresectable HCC in first-line and second-line settings, and compared with T+A and regorafenib, respectively, and ranked based on efficacy and safety to support clinical decision making.

Wang Q ，Yu J ，Sun X ，Li J ，Cao S ，Han Y ，Wang H ，Yang Z ，Li J ，Hu C ，Zhang Y ，Jin L ... -  《-》

Defining the optimum strategy for identifying adults and children with coeliac disease: systematic review and economic modelling.

Elwenspoek MM ，Thom H ，Sheppard AL ，Keeney E ，O'Donnell R ，Jackson J ，Roadevin C ，Dawson S ，Lane D ，Stubbs J ，Everitt H ，Watson JC ，Hay AD ，Gillett P ，Robins G ，Jones HE ，Mallett S ，Whiting PF ... -  《-》

Antioxidants for female subfertility.

M.G. Showell, R. Mackenzie‐Proctor, V. Jordan, and R.J. Hart, “Antioxidants for Female Subfertility,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, no. 8 (2020): CD007807, https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007807.pub4 This Editorial Note is for the above article, published online on August 27, 2020, in Cochrane Library (cochranelibrary.com), and has been issued by the Publisher, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, in agreement with Cochrane. The Editorial note has been agreed due to concerns discovered by the Cochrane managing editor regarding the retraction of six studies in the Review (Badawy et al. 2006, 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.02.097; El Refaeey et al. 2014, 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.03.011; El Sharkwy & Abd El Aziz 2019a, https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12902; Gerli et al. 2007, https://doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_202309_33752, full text: https://europepmc.org/article/MED/18074942; Ismail et al. 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.06.008; Hashemi et al. 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2017.1372413). In addition, expressions of concern have been published for two studies (Jamilian et al. 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-017-1236-3; Zadeh Modarres 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-017-1148-2). The retracted studies will be moved to the Excluded Studies table, and their impact on the review findings will be investigated and acted on accordingly in a future update. Initial checks indicate that removal of the six retracted studies did not make an appreciable difference to the results. Likewise, the studies for which Expressions of Concern were issued will be moved to the Awaiting classification table; they did not report any review outcomes, so removal will have no impact on the review findings. A couple may be considered to have fertility problems if they have been trying to conceive for over a year with no success. This may affect up to a quarter of all couples planning a child. It is estimated that for 40% to 50% of couples, subfertility may result from factors affecting women. Antioxidants are thought to reduce the oxidative stress brought on by these conditions. Currently, limited evidence suggests that antioxidants improve fertility, and trials have explored this area with varied results. This review assesses the evidence for the effectiveness of different antioxidants in female subfertility. To determine whether supplementary oral antioxidants compared with placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant improve fertility outcomes for subfertile women. We searched the following databases (from their inception to September 2019), with no language or date restriction: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and AMED. We checked reference lists of relevant studies and searched the trial registers. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment or treatment with another antioxidant, among women attending a reproductive clinic. We excluded trials comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and trials that only included fertile women attending a fertility clinic because of male partner infertility. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was live birth; secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rates and adverse events. We included 63 trials involving 7760 women. Investigators compared oral antioxidants, including: combinations of antioxidants, N-acetylcysteine, melatonin, L-arginine, myo-inositol, carnitine, selenium, vitamin E, vitamin B complex, vitamin C, vitamin D+calcium, CoQ10, and omega-3-polyunsaturated fatty acids versus placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant. Only 27 of the 63 included trials reported funding sources. Due to the very low-quality of the evidence we are uncertain whether antioxidants improve live birth rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (odds ratio (OR) 1.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36 to 2.43; P < 0.001, I2 = 29%; 13 RCTs, 1227 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live birth rate of 19%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 24% and 36%. Low-quality evidence suggests that antioxidants may improve clinical pregnancy rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.89; P < 0.001, I2 = 63%; 35 RCTs, 5165 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected clinical pregnancy rate of 19%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 25% and 30%. Heterogeneity was moderately high. Overall 28 trials reported on various adverse events in the meta-analysis. The evidence suggests that the use of antioxidants makes no difference between the groups in rates of miscarriage (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.55; P = 0.46, I2 = 0%; 24 RCTs, 3229 women; low-quality evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of multiple pregnancy (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.56; P = 0.99, I2 = 0%; 9 RCTs, 1886 women; low-quality evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of gastrointestinal disturbances (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.10; P = 0.47, I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs, 343 women; low-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence showed that there was also no difference between the groups in rates of ectopic pregnancy (OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.27 to 7.20; P = 0.69, I2 = 0%; 4 RCTs, 404 women). In the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison, low-quality evidence shows no difference in a lower dose of melatonin being associated with an increased live-birth rate compared with higher-dose melatonin (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.15; P = 0.89, I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 140 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live-birth rate of 24%, the rate among women using a lower dose of melatonin compared to a higher dose would be between 12% and 40%. Similarly with clinical pregnancy, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates between a lower and a higher dose of melatonin (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.15; P = 0.89, I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 140 women). Three trials reported on miscarriage in the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison (two used doses of melatonin and one compared N-acetylcysteine versus L-carnitine). There were no miscarriages in either melatonin trial. Multiple pregnancy and gastrointestinal disturbances were not reported, and ectopic pregnancy was reported by only one trial, with no events. The study comparing N-acetylcysteine with L-carnitine did not report live birth rate. Very low-quality evidence shows no evidence of a difference in clinical pregnancy (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.00; 1 RCT, 164 women; low-quality evidence). Low quality evidence shows no difference in miscarriage (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.42 to 5.67; 1 RCT, 164 women; low-quality evidence). The study did not report multiple pregnancy, gastrointestinal disturbances or ectopic pregnancy. The overall quality of evidence was limited by serious risk of bias associated with poor reporting of methods, imprecision and inconsistency. In this review, there was low- to very low-quality evidence to show that taking an antioxidant may benefit subfertile women. Overall, there is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage, multiple births, gastrointestinal effects or ectopic pregnancies, but evidence was of very low quality. At this time, there is limited evidence in support of supplemental oral antioxidants for subfertile women.

Showell MG ，Mackenzie-Proctor R ，Jordan V ，Hart RJ ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Pharmacological treatments in panic disorder in adults: a network meta-analysis.

A panic attack is a discrete period of fear or anxiety that has a rapid onset and reaches a peak within 10 minutes. The main symptoms involve bodily systems, such as racing heart, chest pain, sweating, shaking, dizziness, flushing, churning stomach, faintness and breathlessness. Other recognised panic attack symptoms involve fearful cognitions, such as the fear of collapse, going mad or dying, and derealisation (the sensation that the world is unreal). Panic disorder is common in the general population with a prevalence of 1% to 4%. The treatment of panic disorder includes psychological and pharmacological interventions, including antidepressants and benzodiazepines. To compare, via network meta-analysis, individual drugs (antidepressants and benzodiazepines) or placebo in terms of efficacy and acceptability in the acute treatment of panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia. To rank individual active drugs for panic disorder (antidepressants, benzodiazepines and placebo) according to their effectiveness and acceptability. To rank drug classes for panic disorder (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), mono-amine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and benzodiazepines (BDZs) and placebo) according to their effectiveness and acceptability. To explore heterogeneity and inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence in a network meta-analysis. We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, CENTRAL, CDSR, MEDLINE, Ovid Embase and PsycINFO to 26 May 2022. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people aged 18 years or older of either sex and any ethnicity with clinically diagnosed panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia. We included trials that compared the effectiveness of antidepressants and benzodiazepines with each other or with a placebo. Two authors independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We analysed dichotomous data and continuous data as risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD): response to treatment (i.e. substantial improvement from baseline as defined by the original investigators: dichotomous outcome), total number of dropouts due to any reason (as a proxy measure of treatment acceptability: dichotomous outcome), remission (i.e. satisfactory end state as defined by global judgement of the original investigators: dichotomous outcome), panic symptom scales and global judgement (continuous outcome), frequency of panic attacks (as recorded, for example, by a panic diary; continuous outcome), agoraphobia (dichotomous outcome). We assessed the certainty of evidence using threshold analyses. Overall, we included 70 trials in this review. Sample sizes ranged between 5 and 445 participants in each arm, and the total sample size per study ranged from 10 to 1168. Thirty-five studies included sample sizes of over 100 participants. There is evidence from 48 RCTs (N = 10,118) that most medications are more effective in the response outcome than placebo. In particular, diazepam, alprazolam, clonazepam, paroxetine, venlafaxine, clomipramine, fluoxetine and adinazolam showed the strongest effect, with diazepam, alprazolam and clonazepam ranking as the most effective. We found heterogeneity in most of the comparisons, but our threshold analyses suggest that this is unlikely to impact the findings of the network meta-analysis. Results from 64 RCTs (N = 12,310) suggest that most medications are associated with either a reduced or similar risk of dropouts to placebo. Alprazolam and diazepam were associated with a lower dropout rate compared to placebo and were ranked as the most tolerated of all the medications examined. Thirty-two RCTs (N = 8569) were included in the remission outcome. Most medications were more effective than placebo, namely desipramine, fluoxetine, clonazepam, diazepam, fluvoxamine, imipramine, venlafaxine and paroxetine, and their effects were clinically meaningful. Amongst these medications, desipramine and alprazolam were ranked highest. Thirty-five RCTs (N = 8826) are included in the continuous outcome reduction in panic scale scores. Brofaromine, clonazepam and reboxetine had the strongest reductions in panic symptoms compared to placebo, but results were based on either one trial or very small trials. Forty-one RCTs (N = 7853) are included in the frequency of panic attack outcome. Only clonazepam and alprazolam showed a strong reduction in the frequency of panic attacks compared to placebo, and were ranked highest. Twenty-six RCTs (N = 7044) provided data for agoraphobia. The strongest reductions in agoraphobia symptoms were found for citalopram, reboxetine, escitalopram, clomipramine and diazepam, compared to placebo. For the pooled intervention classes, we examined the two primary outcomes (response and dropout). The classes of medication were: SSRIs, SNRIs, TCAs, MAOIs and BDZs. For the response outcome, all classes of medications examined were more effective than placebo. TCAs as a class ranked as the most effective, followed by BDZs and MAOIs. SSRIs as a class ranked fifth on average, while SNRIs were ranked lowest. When we compared classes of medication with each other for the response outcome, we found no difference between classes. Comparisons between MAOIs and TCAs and between BDZs and TCAs also suggested no differences between these medications, but the results were imprecise. For the dropout outcome, BDZs were the only class associated with a lower dropout compared to placebo and were ranked first in terms of tolerability. The other classes did not show any difference in dropouts compared to placebo. In terms of ranking, TCAs are on average second to BDZs, followed by SNRIs, then by SSRIs and lastly by MAOIs. BDZs were associated with lower dropout rates compared to SSRIs, SNRIs and TCAs. The quality of the studies comparing antidepressants with placebo was moderate, while the quality of the studies comparing BDZs with placebo and antidepressants was low. In terms of efficacy, SSRIs, SNRIs (venlafaxine), TCAs, MAOIs and BDZs may be effective, with little difference between classes. However, it is important to note that the reliability of these findings may be limited due to the overall low quality of the studies, with all having unclear or high risk of bias across multiple domains. Within classes, some differences emerged. For example, amongst the SSRIs paroxetine and fluoxetine seem to have stronger evidence of efficacy than sertraline. Benzodiazepines appear to have a small but significant advantage in terms of tolerability (incidence of dropouts) over other classes.

Guaiana G ，Meader N ，Barbui C ，Davies SJ ，Furukawa TA ，Imai H ，Dias S ，Caldwell DM ，Koesters M ，Tajika A ，Bighelli I ，Pompoli A ，Cipriani A ，Dawson S ，Robertson L ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Comparison of efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 combination therapy in first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis.

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors has led to an increase in randomized controlled trials exploring various first-line combination treatment regimens. With the introduction of new PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, there are now more clinical options available. For the first time, the AK105 monoclonal antibody Penpulimab, developed in China, was included. The AK105-302 Phase III trial studied the efficacy and safety of Penpulimab combined with chemotherapy in patients with advanced or metastatic squamous NSCLC. To determine the optimal treatment options, we conducted an updated network meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and safety of these regimens. The system retrieves data from Chinese and English electronic databases, Clinical Trials, and the gov Clinical Trial Registration website up to September 6, 2023. The study indirectly compared the efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 combination regimens, including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), all-grade adverse events, and above-grade III adverse events. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) level, histological type, ECOG score, sex, and smoking history. Nineteen RCTS were included, with a total of ten thousand eight hundred patients. Penpulimab plus chemotherapy (Pen + CT) provided the best OS (HR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.38-0.81) for PD-L1 patients with non-selective advanced NSCLC. Except Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab (Niv + Ipi), other PD-1/PD-L1 combination therapies significantly extended PFS compared with CT, and Nivolumab plus Bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy (Niv + Bev + CT) (HR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.26-0.74) provided the best PFS benefit and was comparable to Pen + CT (HR = 1.0) for PFS prolongation. For ORR, except Niv + Ipi, all the other regimens significantly improved ORR compared with CT. In terms of safety, except Tor + CT, the incidence of any-grade AEs or grade ≥ 3 adverse events may be higher than those of chemotherapy. The subgroup analysis revealed that for patients with PD-L1 levels below 1%, treatment with Tor + CT resulted in the best progression-free survival (HR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.25-0.86). For patients with PD-L1 levels of 1% or higher, Sintilimab plus chemotherapy (Sin + CT) (HR = 0.56, 95% CI 0.31-0.99) and Camrelizumab plus chemotherapy (Cam + CT) (HR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.28-0.64) were associated with the best overall survival and progression-free survival, respectively. For patients with SqNSCLC, combined immunotherapy may provide greater survival benefits. For patients with Non-sqNSCLC, Niv + Bev + CT and Tor + CT were associated with optimal PFS and OS, respectively. Cam + CT provided the best PFS in male patients with a history of smoking and an ECOG score of 0. In both female and non-smoking patient subgroups, Pem + CT was associated with the best PFS and OS benefits. For patients with advanced non-selective PD-L1 NSCLC, two effective regimens are Pen + CT and Niv + Bev + CT, which rank first in OS and PFS among all patients. Cam + CT and Tor + CT have advantages for OS in patients with SqNSCLC and Non-sqNSCLC, respectively. Niv + Ipi + CT provided the best OS benefit for patients with an ECOG score of 0, while Pem + CT may be the most effective treatment for patients with an ECOG score of 1. Pem + CT has a better effect on female patients and non-smokers. Sin + CT was found to be the most effective treatment for male patients and the smoking subgroup, while Cam + CT was found to be the most effective for PFS. In addition, Tor + CT was associated with the best PFS for patients with negative PD-L1 expression. Pem + CT was found to significantly improve both PFS and OS compared to CT alone. For patients with positive PD-L1 expression, Sin + CT and Cam + CT were found to be optimal for OS and PFS, respectively. It is important to note that, with the exception of Tor + CT, the toxicity of the other combinations was higher than that of CT alone.

Yang Y ，Chen W ，Dong L ，Duan L ，Gao P ... -  《-》