Efficacy and safety assessment of apatinib in patients with advanced gastric cancer: a meta-analysis.
Chen Jianxin,Wang Junhui
OncoTargets and therapy
AIM:This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of apatinib in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). METHODS:After evaluating the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the data of eligible randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were extracted. Outcomes including objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and adverse events (AEs) were analyzed in the meta-analysis. RESULTS:Data of 1,069 patients from 13 RCTs were statistically analyzed. Pooled odds ratio (OR) for ORR and DCR was found to be 0.46 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.33, 0.64; <0.00001) and 0.23 (95% CI: 0.15, 0.36; <0.00001), respectively. Compared with placebo, apatinib showed statistical significance in AEs at any grade, including leucopenia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, hypertension, proteinuria, hand-foot syndrome, and fatigue (all <0.05). CONCLUSION:The results of our meta-analysis revealed that apatinib shows short-term efficacy over no-apatinib regimens or placebo regardless of its use as first- or second-line chemotherapy or for further treatment in patients with AGC accompanied with apparent AEs of any grade.
10.2147/OTT.S157466
Key characteristics of palliative care studies reported in the specialized literature.
Wheeler Jane L,Greene Aine,Tieman Jennifer J,Abernethy Amy P,Currow David C
Journal of pain and symptom management
CONTEXT:Although research activity in palliative care is rapidly increasing, the composition of published studies--in terms of significant research characteristics--has not yet been well described. OBJECTIVES:To describe the topics of and funding for palliative care studies reported in the three hospice and palliative care journals with the highest impact factors (Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, Palliative Medicine, and Journal of Palliative Medicine). METHODS:This was a substudy of a larger bibliographic study. The targeted journals were searched for 2007 using a previously validated Ovid MEDLINE filter for palliative care. All empirical palliative care studies were included. Articles were classified according to topics (palliative care patient, caregiver/family, health professional, service provision, tool development, healthy volunteer, medication compatibility, community), study type (intervention, nonintervention), country of origin, and funding source (pharmaceutical company, other funder, unfunded). RESULTS:Of 409 citations identified, the search yielded 189 eligible articles. Most articles were descriptive/observational. Approximately half were unfunded. Caregivers, healthy volunteers, and health service research were the least frequent topics for research. Only five randomized controlled trials were reported. CONCLUSION:Although there is a broad range of research undertaken in palliative care, few studies generate high-level evidence, with data showing a relative lack of funding for hospice and palliative care studies.
10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2011.07.012
Efficacy of 42 Pharmacologic Cotreatment Strategies Added to Antipsychotic Monotherapy in Schizophrenia: Systematic Overview and Quality Appraisal of the Meta-analytic Evidence.
Correll Christoph U,Rubio Jose M,Inczedy-Farkas Gabriella,Birnbaum Michael L,Kane John M,Leucht Stefan
JAMA psychiatry
Importance:Limited treatment responses in schizophrenia prompted the testing of combining an antipsychotic drug treatment with a second psychotropic medication. A comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy of multiple medication combinations is missing. Objective:To summarize and compare the meta-analytically determined efficacy of pharmacologic combination strategies of antipsychotic drugs in adults with schizophrenia. Data Sources:Systematic search of PubMed and PsycInfo until May 13, 2016. Study Selection:Meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials comparing the efficacy of antipsychotic drugs combined with other antipsychotic or nonantipsychotic medications vs placebos or antipsychotic monotherapy among adults with schizophrenia. Data Extraction and Synthesis:Independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed the quality of the methods of the included meta-analyses using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), adding 6 new items to rate their quality. Effect sizes, expressed as standardized mean difference /Hedges g or risk ratio, were compared separately for combinations with any antipsychotic drug and for combinations with clozapine. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was total symptom reduction. Secondary outcomes included positive and negative symptoms, treatment recommendations by authors, study-defined inefficacies, cognitive and depressive symptoms, discontinuation of treatment because of any cause, and inefficacies or intolerabilities. Results:Of 3397 publications, 29 meta-analyses testing 42 combination strategies in 381 individual trials and among 19 833 participants were included. For total symptom reductions, 32 strategies that augmented any antipsychotic drug and 5 strategies that augmented clozapine were examined. Fourteen combination treatments outperformed controls (standard mean difference/Hedges g, -1.27 [95% CI, -2.35 to -0.19] to -0.23 [95% CI, -0.44 to -0.02]; P = .05). No combination strategies with clozapine outperformed controls. The quality of the methods of the meta-analyses was generally high (mean score, 9 of a maximum score of 11) but the quality of the meta-analyzed studies was low (mean score, 2.8 of a maximum score of 8). Treatment recommendations correlated with the effect size (correlation coefficient, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.35-0.10; P < .001), yet effect sizes were inversely correlated with study quality (correlation coefficient, -0.06; 95% CI, 0.01 to -0.12; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance:Meta-analyses of 21 interventions fully or partially recommended their use, with recommendations being positively correlated with the effect sizes of the pooled intervention. However, the effect sizes were inversely correlated with meta-analyzed study quality, reducing confidence in these recommendations. Higher-quality trials and patient-based meta-analyses are needed to determine whether subpopulations might benefit from combination treatment, as no single strategy can be recommended for patients with schizophrenia based on the current meta-analytic literature.
10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.0624
Comparison of sputum collection methods for tuberculosis diagnosis: a systematic review and pairwise and network meta-analysis.
The Lancet. Global health
BACKGROUND:The performance of laboratory tests to diagnose pulmonary tuberculosis is dependent on the quality of the sputum sample tested. The relative merits of sputum collection methods to improve tuberculosis diagnosis are poorly characterised. We therefore aimed to investigate the effects of sputum collection methods on tuberculosis diagnosis. METHODS:We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate whether non-invasive sputum collection methods in people aged at least 12 years improve the diagnostic performance of laboratory testing for pulmonary tuberculosis. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, ProQuest, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Embase up to April 14, 2017, to identify relevant experimental, case-control, or cohort studies. We analysed data by pairwise meta-analyses with a random-effects model and by network meta-analysis. All diagnostic performance data were calculated at the sputum-sample level, except where authors only reported data at the individual patient-level. Heterogeneity was assessed, with potential causes identified by logistic meta-regression. FINDINGS:We identified 23 eligible studies published between 1959 and 2017, involving 8967 participants who provided 19 252 sputum samples. Brief, on-demand spot sputum collection was the main reference standard. Pooled sputum collection increased tuberculosis diagnosis by microscopy (odds ratio [OR] 1·6, 95% CI 1·3-1·9, p<0·0001) or culture (1·7, 1·2-2·4, p=0·01). Providing instructions to the patient before sputum collection, during observed collection, or together with physiotherapy assistance increased diagnostic performance by microscopy (OR 1·6, 95% CI 1·3-2·0, p<0·0001). Collecting early morning sputum did not significantly increase diagnostic performance of microscopy (OR 1·5, 95% CI 0·9-2·6, p=0·2) or culture (1·4, 0·9-2·4, p=0·2). Network meta-analysis confirmed these findings, and revealed that both pooled and instructed spot sputum collections were similarly effective techniques for increasing the diagnostic performance of microscopy. INTERPRETATION:Tuberculosis diagnoses were substantially increased by either pooled collection or by providing instruction on how to produce a sputum sample taken at any time of the day. Both interventions had a similar effect to that reported for the introduction of new, expensive laboratory tests, and therefore warrant further exploration in the drive to end the global tuberculosis epidemic. FUNDING:Wellcome Trust, Joint Global Health Trials consortium, Innovation For Health and Development, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30201-2
Dismantling, optimising, and personalising internet cognitive behavioural therapy for depression: a systematic review and component network meta-analysis using individual participant data.
The lancet. Psychiatry
BACKGROUND:Internet cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) is a viable delivery format of CBT for depression. However, iCBT programmes include training in a wide array of cognitive and behavioural skills via different delivery methods, and it remains unclear which of these components are more efficacious and for whom. METHODS:We did a systematic review and individual participant data component network meta-analysis (cNMA) of iCBT trials for depression. We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published from database inception to Jan 1, 2019, that compared any form of iCBT against another or a control condition in the acute treatment of adults (aged ≥18 years) with depression. Studies with inpatients or patients with bipolar depression were excluded. We sought individual participant data from the original authors. When these data were unavailable, we used aggregate data. Two independent researchers identified the included components. The primary outcome was depression severity, expressed as incremental mean difference (iMD) in the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores when a component is added to a treatment. We developed a web app that estimates relative efficacies between any two combinations of components, given baseline patient characteristics. This study is registered in PROSPERO, CRD42018104683. FINDINGS:We identified 76 RCTs, including 48 trials contributing individual participant data (11 704 participants) and 28 trials with aggregate data (6474 participants). The participants' weighted mean age was 42·0 years and 12 406 (71%) of 17 521 reported were women. There was suggestive evidence that behavioural activation might be beneficial (iMD -1·83 [95% credible interval (CrI) -2·90 to -0·80]) and that relaxation might be harmful (1·20 [95% CrI 0·17 to 2·27]). Baseline severity emerged as the strongest prognostic factor for endpoint depression. Combining human and automated encouragement reduced dropouts from treatment (incremental odds ratio, 0·32 [95% CrI 0·13 to 0·93]). The risk of bias was low for the randomisation process, missing outcome data, or selection of reported results in most of the included studies, uncertain for deviation from intended interventions, and high for measurement of outcomes. There was moderate to high heterogeneity among the studies and their components. INTERPRETATION:The individual patient data cNMA revealed potentially helpful, less helpful, or harmful components and delivery formats for iCBT packages. iCBT packages aiming to be effective and efficient might choose to include beneficial components and exclude ones that are potentially detrimental. Our web app can facilitate shared decision making by therapist and patient in choosing their preferred iCBT package. FUNDING:Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.
10.1016/S2215-0366(21)00077-8
The Role of Maintenance Strategies in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.
Sonbol Mohamad Bassam,Mountjoy Luke J,Firwana Belal,Liu Alex J,Almader-Douglas Diana,Mody Kabir,Hubbard Joleen,Borad Mitesh,Ahn Daniel H,Murad M Hassan,Bekaii-Saab Tanios
JAMA oncology
Importance:In metastatic colorectal cancer, induction combination chemotherapy with a targeted agent is considered the mainstay of treatment. Multiple randomized clinical trials have examined different strategies of continuing cytotoxic therapy until progression compared with a period of either observation or the use of various maintenance agents. However, those randomized clinical trials have shown inconsistent efficacy results that make it challenging to draw any conclusion on which strategy is preferred. Therefore, a network meta-analysis is helpful to compare different agents across randomized clinical trials. Objective:To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of different treatment strategies for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Evidence Review:MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized clinical trials evaluating different strategies for patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. Trials of interest included those including patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who were treated with an initial period of cytotoxic chemotherapy (with or without a biologic) and then switched to one of the following strategies: observation; maintenance with bevacizumab (Bev), fluoropyrimidine (FP), or both (FP + Bev); or continuing the induction regimen until progression. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The overall effect was pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model. Network meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects consistency model to pool evidence from direct and indirect comparisons. Agents were ranked using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities. Higher SUCRA scores correspond to greater efficacy. Initial analysis was performed on December 18, 2018. An updated search was performed in April 2019, and no additional studies were added. Findings:Twelve trials at low risk of bias (5540 patients; age range, 23-85 years; 64.4 % male) were included. Network meta-analysis showed no benefit of continuing full cytotoxic chemotherapy until progression vs observation in terms of PFS (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.46-1.09) and OS (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.85-1.07). Compared with observation, maintenance therapy showed a PFS benefit (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.43-0.77) but not an OS benefit (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.83-1.01). All maintenance strategies (FP, FP + Bev, and Bev) showed significant improvement in PFS vs observation. On SUCRA analysis, maintenance treatment (FP or FP + Bev) had the highest likelihood of achieving improved PFS (67.1% for FP, 99.8% for FP + Bev, and 36.5% for Bev) and OS (81.3% for FP, 73.2% for FP + Bev, and 32.6% for Bev). Conclusions and Relevance:For patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, there is no benefit to continuing the full induction regimen until progression, without a period of either observation or maintenance treatment. A maintenance strategy with a fluoropyrimidine, with or without the addition of bevacizumab, is preferred. However, given the lack of a clear OS benefit, shared decision-making should include observation as an acceptable alternative.
10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.4489
Optimal Antithrombotic Regimens for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Updated Network Meta-analysis.
Lopes Renato D,Hong Hwanhee,Harskamp Ralf E,Bhatt Deepak L,Mehran Roxana,Cannon Christopher P,Granger Christopher B,Verheugt Freek W A,Li Jianghao,Ten Berg Jurriën M,Sarafoff Nikolaus,Vranckx Pascal,Goette Andreas,Gibson C Michael,Alexander John H
JAMA cardiology
Importance:Antithrombotic treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) presents a balancing act with regard to bleeding and ischemic risks. Objectives:To evaluate the safety and efficacy of 4 antithrombotic regimens by conducting an up-to-date network meta-analysis and to identify the optimal treatment for patients with AF undergoing PCI. Data Sources:Online computerized database (MEDLINE). Study Selection:Five randomized studies were included (N = 11 542; WOEST, PIONEER AF-PCI, RE-DUAL PCI, AUGUSTUS, ENTRUST-AF PCI). Data Extraction and Synthesis:The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used in this network meta-analysis, in which bayesian random-effects models were applied. The data were analyzed from September 9 to 29, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary safety outcome was thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) major bleeding and the primary efficacy outcome was trial-defined major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Results:The total number of participants included in the study was 11 532. The mean age of the participants ranged from 70 to 72 years, 69% to 83% were male, 20% to 26% were female, and the participants were predominantly white (>90%). Compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) plus dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) (reference), the odds ratios (ORs) (95% credible intervals) for TIMI major bleeding were 0.57 (0.31-1.00) for VKA plus P2Y12 inhibitor, 0.69 (0.40-1.16) for non-VKA oral anticoagulant (NOAC) plus DAPT, and 0.52 (0.35-0.79) for NOAC plus P2Y12 inhibitor. For MACE, using VKA plus DAPT as reference, the ORs (95% credible intervals) were 0.97 (0.64-1.42) for VKA plus P2Y12 inhibitor, 0.95 (0.64-1.39) for NOAC plus DAPT, and 1.03 (0.77-1.38) for NOAC plus P2Y12 inhibitor. Conclusions and Relevance:The findings of this study suggest that an antithrombotic regimen of VKA plus DAPT should generally be avoided, because regimens in which aspirin is discontinued may lead to lower bleeding risk and no difference in antithrombotic effectiveness. The use of a NOAC plus a P2Y12 inhibitor without aspirin may be the most favorable treatment option and the preferred antithrombotic regimen for most patients with AF undergoing PCI.
10.1001/jamacardio.2019.6175
Systolic Blood Pressure Reduction and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease and Mortality: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.
Bundy Joshua D,Li Changwei,Stuchlik Patrick,Bu Xiaoqing,Kelly Tanika N,Mills Katherine T,He Hua,Chen Jing,Whelton Paul K,He Jiang
JAMA cardiology
Importance:Clinical trials have documented that lowering blood pressure reduces cardiovascular disease and premature deaths. However, the optimal target for reduction of systolic blood pressure (SBP) is uncertain. Objective:To assess the association of mean achieved SBP levels with the risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality in adults with hypertension treated with antihypertensive therapy. Data Sources:MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from inception to December 15, 2015, supplemented by manual searches of the bibliographies of retrieved articles. Study Selection:Studies included were clinical trials with random allocation to an antihypertensive medication, control, or treatment target. Studies had to have reported a difference in mean achieved SBP of 5 mm Hg or more between comparison groups. Data Extraction and Synthesis:Data were extracted from each study independently and in duplicate by at least 2 investigators according to a standardized protocol. Network meta-analysis was used to obtain pooled randomized results comparing the association of each 5-mm Hg SBP category with clinical outcomes after adjusting for baseline risk. Main Outcomes and Measures:Cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality. Results:Forty-two trials, including 144 220 patients, met the eligibility criteria. In general, there were linear associations between mean achieved SBP and risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality, with the lowest risk at 120 to 124 mm Hg. Randomized groups with a mean achieved SBP of 120 to 124 mm Hg had a hazard ratio (HR) for major cardiovascular disease of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.60-0.83) compared with randomized groups with a mean achieved SBP of 130 to 134 mm Hg, an HR of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.48-0.72) compared with those with a mean achieved SBP of 140 to 144 mm Hg, an HR of 0.46 (95% CI, 0.34-0.63) compared with those with a mean achieved SBP of 150 to 154 mm Hg, and an HR of 0.36 (95% CI, 0.26-0.51) compared with those with a mean achieved SBP of 160 mm Hg or more. Likewise, randomized groups with a mean achieved SBP of 120 to 124 mm Hg had an HR for all-cause mortality of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.58-0.93) compared with randomized groups with a mean achieved SBP of 130 to 134 mm Hg, an HR of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.45-0.77) compared with those with a mean achieved SBP of 140 to 144 mm Hg, an HR of 0.51 (95% CI, 0.36-0.71) compared with those with a mean achieved SBP of 150 to 154 mm Hg, and an HR of 0.47 (95% CI, 0.32-0.67) compared with those with a mean achieved SBP of 160 mm Hg or more. Conclusions and Relevance:This study suggests that reducing SBP to levels below currently recommended targets significantly reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality. These findings support more intensive control of SBP among adults with hypertension.
10.1001/jamacardio.2017.1421
Association of Delirium Response and Safety of Pharmacological Interventions for the Management and Prevention of Delirium: A Network Meta-analysis.
Wu Yi-Cheng,Tseng Ping-Tao,Tu Yu-Kang,Hsu Chung-Yao,Liang Chih-Sung,Yeh Ta-Chuan,Chen Tien-Yu,Chu Che-Sheng,Matsuoka Yutaka J,Stubbs Brendon,Carvalho Andre F,Wada Saho,Lin Pao-Yen,Chen Yen-Wen,Su Kuan-Pin
JAMA psychiatry
Importance:Although several pharmacological interventions for delirium have been investigated, their overall benefit and safety remain unclear. Objective:To evaluate evidence regarding pharmacological interventions for delirium treatment and prevention. Data Sources:PubMed, Embase, ProQuest, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, ClinicalKey, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to May 17, 2018. Study Selection:Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) examining pharmacological interventions for delirium treatment and prevention. Data Extraction and Synthesis:To extract data according to a predetermined list of interests, the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines were applied, and all meta-analytic procedures were conducted using a random-effects model. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcomes were treatment response in patients with delirium and the incidence of delirium in patients at risk of delirium. Results:A total of 58 RCTs were included, in which 20 RCTs with 1435 participants (mean age, 63.5 years; 65.1% male) compared the outcomes of treatment and 38 RCTs with 8168 participants (mean age, 70.2 years; 53.4% male) examined the prevention of delirium. A network meta-analysis demonstrated that haloperidol plus lorazepam provided the best response rate for delirium treatment (odds ratio [OR], 28.13; 95% CI, 2.38-333.08) compared with placebo/control. For delirium prevention, the ramelteon, olanzapine, risperidone, and dexmedetomidine hydrochloride groups had significantly lower delirium occurrence rates than placebo/control (OR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01-0.66 for ramelteon; OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.09-0.69 for olanzapine; OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.07-0.99 for risperidone; and OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31-0.80 for dexmedetomidine hydrochloride). None of the pharmacological treatments were significantly associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality compared with placebo/control. Conclusions and Relevance:This network meta-analysis demonstrated that haloperidol plus lorazepam might be the best treatment and ramelteon the best preventive medicine for delirium. None of the pharmacological interventions for treatment or prophylaxis increased the all-cause mortality.
10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.4365
Maintenance Treatment and Survival in Patients With Myeloma: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.
Gay Francesca,Jackson Graham,Rosiñol Laura,Holstein Sarah A,Moreau Philippe,Spada Stefano,Davies Faith,Lahuerta Juan José,Leleu Xavier,Bringhen Sara,Evangelista Andrea,Hulin Cyrille,Panzani Ugo,Cairns David A,Di Raimondo Francesco,Macro Margaret,Liberati Anna Marina,Pawlyn Charlotte,Offidani Massimo,Spencer Andrew,Hájek Roman,Terpos Evangelos,Morgan Gareth J,Bladé Joan,Sonneveld Pieter,San-Miguel Jesús,McCarthy Philip L,Ludwig Heinz,Boccadoro Mario,Mateos Maria-Victoria,Attal Michel
JAMA oncology
Importance:Several trials demonstrated the impact of novel agent-based maintenance in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), but there is no current evidence demonstrating the superiority of one regimen over the other, owing to the lack of direct/indirect comparisons. Objective:To analyze and compare the effectiveness of different maintenance regimens in NDMM via a network meta-analysis. Data Sources:We performed 2 independent searches in PubMed and Cochrane databases, and then we identified all the records registered after 1999 and on or before November 20, 2017. Study Selection:By blinded review, we identified prospective phase 3 randomized trials evaluating novel agent-based maintenance in patients with NDMM; the included studies compared at least 2 maintenance approaches; comparators included placebo and no maintenance. From 364 screened records, 11 studies were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis:We followed (independent extraction) the guidelines provided by the PRISMA Report and the EQUATOR Network. The evidence was synthesized using a network meta-analysis (NMA). To allow comparison of all treatments, no maintenance was selected as common comparator and the effect of placebo was assumed to be the same as no treatment. The best option was identified by a Bayesian consistency model based on hazard ratio (HR), 95% credible interval (CrI), probability of being the best treatment (PbBT), and median ranking distribution (MedR). Main Outcomes and Measures:Outcomes of interest were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results:Eleven trials and 8 treatments including a total of 5073 participants were included. By PFS analysis, lenalidomide-based regimens (lenalidomide-prednisone, lenalidomide alone) were identified as the most effective options (HR, 0.39 [95% CrI, 0.28-0.53] and 0.47 [95% CrI, 0.39-0.55], respectively; MedR, 1 and 2; overall PbBT, 74%). Four treatments (thalidomide-interferon, thalidomide-bortezomib, bortezomib-prednisone, thalidomide alone) showed an HR in favor of maintenance. By OS analysis, lenalidomide alone was identified as the best option (HR, 0.76; 95% CrI, 0.51-1.16; MedR, 2; PbBT, 38%), followed by bortezomib-thalidomide and bortezomib-prednisone. Similar features were noticed in the restricted network including transplant trials, in the sensitivity analysis, and in most of the prognostic subgroups. Conclusions and Relevance:Based on PFS and OS results of this NMA, lenalidomide maintenance appears to be the best treatment option, by synthesizing the available evidence of novel agent-based maintenance in the past 20 years.
10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.2961
Environmental risk factors and multiple sclerosis: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
The Lancet. Neurology
BACKGROUND:The cause of multiple sclerosis is believed to involve environmental exposure and genetic susceptibility. We aimed to summarise the environmental risk factors that have been studied in relation to onset of multiple sclerosis, assess whether there is evidence for diverse biases in this literature, and identify risk factors without evidence of biases. METHODS:We searched PubMed from inception to Nov 22, 2014, to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies that examined associations between environmental factors and multiple sclerosis. For each meta-analysis we estimated the summary effect size by use of random-effects and fixed-effects models, the 95% CI, and the 95% prediction interval. We estimated the between-study heterogeneity expressed by I(2) (defined as large for I(2)≥50%), evidence of small-study effects (ie, large studies had significantly more conservative results than smaller studies), and evidence of excess significance bias (ie, more studies than expected with significant results). FINDINGS:Overall, 44 unique meta-analyses including 416 primary studies of different risk factors and multiple sclerosis were examined, covering a wide range of risk factors: vaccinations, comorbid diseases, surgeries, traumatic events and accidents, exposure to environmental agents, and biochemical, infectious, and musculoskeletal biomarkers. 23 of 44 meta-analyses had results that were significant at p values less than 0·05 and 11 at p values less than 0·001 under the random-effects model. Only three of the 11 significant meta-analyses (p<0·001) included more than 1000 cases, had 95% prediction intervals excluding the null value, and were not suggestive of large heterogeneity (I(2)<50%), small-study effects (p for Egger's test >0·10), or excess significance (p>0·05). These were IgG seropositivity to Epstein-Barr virus nuclear antigen (EBNA) (random effects odds ratio [OR] 4·46, 95% CI 3·26-6·09; p for effect size=1·5 × 10(-19); I(2)=43%), infectious mononucleosis (2·17, 1·97-2·39; p=3·1 × 10(-50); I(2)=0%), and smoking (1·52, 1·39-1·66; p=1·7 × 10(-18;)I(2)=0%). INTERPRETATION:Many studies on environmental factors associated with multiple sclerosis have caveats casting doubts on their validity. Data from more and better-designed studies are needed to establish robust evidence. A biomarker of Epstein-Barr virus (anti-EBNA IgG seropositivity), infectious mononucleosis, and smoking showed the strongest consistent evidence of an association. FUNDING:None.
10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70267-4
Pharmacological treatment for bipolar mania: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of double-blind randomized controlled trials.
Molecular psychiatry
A systematic review and random-effects model network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy, acceptability, tolerability, and safety of pharmacological interventions for adults with acute bipolar mania. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase databases for eligible studies published before March 14, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of oral medication monotherapy lasting ≥10 days in adults with mania were included, and studies that allowed the use of antipsychotics as a rescue medication during a trial were excluded. The primary outcomes were response to treatment (efficacy) and all-cause discontinuation (acceptability). The secondary outcomes were the improvement of mania symptoms and discontinuation due to inefficacy. Of the 79 eligible RCTs, 72 double-blind RCTs of 23 drugs and a placebo were included in the meta-analysis (mean study duration = 3.96 ± 2.39 weeks, n = 16442, mean age = 39.55 years, with 50.93% males). Compared with the placebo, aripiprazole, asenapine, carbamazepine, cariprazine, haloperidol, lithium, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone, tamoxifen, valproate, and ziprasidone outperformed response to treatment (N = 56, n = 14503); aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone had lower all-cause discontinuation; however, topiramate had higher all-cause discontinuation (N = 70, n = 16324). Compared with the placebo, aripiprazole, asenapine, carbamazepine, cariprazine, haloperidol, lithium, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone, tamoxifen, valproate, and ziprasidone outperformed the improvement of mania symptoms (N = 61, n = 15466), and aripiprazole, asenapine, carbamazepine, cariprazine, haloperidol, lithium, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone, valproate, and ziprasidone had lower discontinuation due to inefficacy (N = 50, n = 14284). In conclusions, these antipsychotics, carbamazepine, lithium, tamoxifen, and valproate were effective for acute mania. However, only aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone had better acceptability than the placebo.
10.1038/s41380-021-01334-4
School-based interventions to prevent anxiety and depression in children and young people: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
The lancet. Psychiatry
BACKGROUND:Rates of anxiety and depression are increasing among children and young people. Recent policies have focused on primary prevention of mental disorders in children and young people, with schools at the forefront of implementation. There is limited information for the comparative effectiveness of the multiple interventions available. METHODS:We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis, searching MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials for published and unpublished, passive and active-controlled randomised and quasi-randomised trials. We included educational setting-based, universal, or targeted interventions in which the primary aim was the prevention of anxiety and depression in children and young people aged 4-18 years. Primary outcomes were post-intervention self-report anxiety and depression, wellbeing, suicidal ideation, or self-harm. We assessed risk of bias following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We estimated standardised mean differences (SMD) using random effects network meta-analysis in a Bayesian framework. The study is registered with PROPSERO, number CRD42016048184. FINDINGS:1512 full-text articles were independently screened for inclusion by two reviewers, from which 137 studies of 56 620 participants were included. 20 studies were assessed as being at low risk of bias for both random sequence generation and allocation concealment. There was weak evidence to suggest that cognitive behavioural interventions might reduce anxiety in primary and secondary settings. In universal secondary settings, mindfulness and relaxation-based interventions showed a reduction in anxiety symptoms relative to usual curriculum (SMD -0·65, 95% credible interval -1·14 to -0·19). There was a lack of evidence to support any one type of intervention being effective to prevent depression in universal or targeted primary or secondary settings. Comparison-adjusted funnel plots suggest the presence of small-study effects for the universal secondary anxiety analysis. Network meta-analysis was not feasible for wellbeing or suicidal ideation or self-harm outcomes, and results are reported narratively. INTERPRETATION:Considering unclear risk of bias and probable small study effects for anxiety, we conclude there is little evidence that educational setting-based interventions focused solely on the prevention of depression or anxiety are effective. Future research could consider multilevel, systems-based interventions as an alternative to the downstream interventions considered here. FUNDING:UK National Institute for Health Research.
10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30403-1
Chemotherapy and radiotherapy in locally advanced head and neck cancer: an individual patient data network meta-analysis.
Petit Claire,Lacas Benjamin,Pignon Jean-Pierre,Le Quynh Thu,Grégoire Vincent,Grau Cai,Hackshaw Allan,Zackrisson Björn,Parmar Mahesh K B,Lee Ju-Whei,Ghi Maria Grazia,Sanguineti Giuseppe,Temam Stéphane,Cheugoua-Zanetsie Maurice,O'Sullivan Brian,Posner Marshall R,Vokes Everett E,Cruz Hernandez Juan J,Szutkowski Zbigniew,Lartigau Eric,Budach Volker,Suwiński Rafal,Poulsen Michael,Kumar Shaleen,Ghosh Laskar Sarbani,Mazeron Jean-Jacques,Jeremic Branislav,Simes John,Zhong Lai-Ping,Overgaard Jens,Fortpied Catherine,Torres-Saavedra Pedro,Bourhis Jean,Aupérin Anne,Blanchard Pierre,
The Lancet. Oncology
BACKGROUND:Randomised, controlled trials and meta-analyses have shown the survival benefit of concomitant chemoradiotherapy or hyperfractionated radiotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer. However, the relative efficacy of these treatments is unknown. We aimed to determine whether one treatment was superior to the other. METHODS:We did a frequentist network meta-analysis based on individual patient data of meta-analyses evaluating the role of chemotherapy (Meta-Analysis of Chemotherapy in Head and Neck Cancer [MACH-NC]) and of altered fractionation radiotherapy (Meta-Analysis of Radiotherapy in Carcinomas of Head and Neck [MARCH]). Randomised, controlled trials that enrolled patients with non-metastatic head and neck squamous cell cancer between Jan 1, 1980, and Dec 31, 2016, were included. We used a two-step random-effects approach, and the log-rank test, stratified by trial to compare treatments, with locoregional therapy as the reference. Overall survival was the primary endpoint. The global Cochran Q statistic was used to assess homogeneity and consistency and P score to rank treatments (higher scores indicate more effective therapies). FINDINGS:115 randomised, controlled trials, which enrolled patients between Jan 1, 1980, and April 30, 2012, yielded 154 comparisons (28 978 patients with 19 253 deaths and 20 579 progression events). Treatments were grouped into 16 modalities, for which 35 types of direct comparisons were available. Median follow-up based on all trials was 6·6 years (IQR 5·0-9·4). Hyperfractionated radiotherapy with concomitant chemotherapy (HFCRT) was ranked as the best treatment for overall survival (P score 97%; hazard ratio 0·63 [95% CI 0·51-0·77] compared with locoregional therapy). The hazard ratio of HFCRT compared with locoregional therapy with concomitant chemoradiotherapy with platinum-based chemotherapy (CLRT) was 0·82 (95% CI 0·66-1·01) for overall survival. The superiority of HFCRT was robust to sensitivity analyses. Three other modalities of treatment had a better P score, but not a significantly better HR, for overall survival than CLRT (P score 78%): induction chemotherapy with taxane, cisplatin, and fluorouracil followed by locoregional therapy (IC-LRT; 89%), accelerated radiotherapy with concomitant chemotherapy (82%), and IC followed by CLRT (80%). INTERPRETATION:The results of this network meta-analysis suggest that further intensifying chemoradiotherapy, using HFCRT or IC-CLRT, could improve outcomes over chemoradiotherapy for the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer. FUNDINGS:French Institut National du Cancer, French Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, and Fondation ARC.
10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00076-0
Adjunctive Psychotherapy for Bipolar Disorder: A Systematic Review and Component Network Meta-analysis.
Miklowitz David J,Efthimiou Orestis,Furukawa Toshi A,Scott Jan,McLaren Ross,Geddes John R,Cipriani Andrea
JAMA psychiatry
Importance:Several psychotherapy protocols have been evaluated as adjuncts to pharmacotherapy for patients with bipolar disorder, but little is known about their comparative effectiveness. Objective:To use systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the association of using manualized psychotherapies and therapy components with reducing recurrences and stabilizing symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder. Data Sources:Major bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, PsychInfo, and Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews) and trial registries were searched from inception to June 1, 2019, for randomized clinical trials of psychotherapy for bipolar disorder. Study Selection:Of 3255 abstracts, 39 randomized clinical trials were identified that compared pharmacotherapy plus manualized psychotherapy (cognitive behavioral therapy, family or conjoint therapy, interpersonal therapy, or psychoeducational therapy) with pharmacotherapy plus a control intervention (eg, supportive therapy or treatment as usual) for patients with bipolar disorder. Data Extraction and Synthesis:Binary outcomes (recurrence and study retention) were compared across treatments using odds ratios (ORs). For depression or mania severity scores, data were pooled and compared across treatments using standardized mean differences (SMDs) (Hedges-adjusted g using weighted pooled SDs). In component network meta-analyses, the incremental effectiveness of 13 specific therapy components was examined. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was illness recurrence. Secondary outcomes were depressive and manic symptoms at 12 months and acceptability of treatment (study retention). Results:A total of 39 randomized clinical trials with 3863 participants (2247 of 3693 [60.8%] with data on sex were female; mean [SD] age, 36.5 [8.2] years) were identified. Across 20 two-group trials that provided usable information, manualized treatments were associated with lower recurrence rates than control treatments (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43-0.74). Psychoeducation with guided practice of illness management skills in a family or group format was associated with reducing recurrences vs the same strategies in an individual format (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.94). Cognitive behavioral therapy (SMD, -0.32; 95% CI, -0.64 to -0.01) and, with less certainty, family or conjoint therapy (SMD, -0.46; 95% CI, -1.01 to 0.08) and interpersonal therapy (SMD, -0.46; 95% CI, -1.07 to 0.15) were associated with stabilizing depressive symptoms compared with treatment as usual. Higher study retention was associated with family or conjoint therapy (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.26-0.82) and brief psychoeducation (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23-0.85) compared with standard psychoeducation. Conclusions and Relevance:This study suggests that outpatients with bipolar disorder may benefit from skills-based psychosocial interventions combined with pharmacotherapy. Conclusions are tempered by heterogeneity in populations, treatment duration, and follow-up.
10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.2993
Comparison of Systemic Treatments for Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.
JAMA oncology
IMPORTANCE:Multiple systemic treatments are available for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), with unclear comparative effectiveness and safety and widely varied costs. OBJECTIVE:To compare the effectiveness and safety determined in randomized clinical trials of systemic treatments for mCSPC. DATA SOURCES:Bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central), regulatory documents (US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency), and trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and European Union clinical trials register) were searched from inception through November 5, 2019. STUDY SELECTION, DATA EXTRACTION, AND SYNTHESIS:Eligible studies were randomized clinical trials evaluating the addition of docetaxel, abiraterone acetate, apalutamide, or enzalutamide to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for treatment of mCSPC. Two investigators independently performed screening. Discrepancies were resolved through consensus. A Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to assess trial quality. Relative effects of competing treatments were assessed by bayesian network meta-analysis and survival models. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline was used. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Overall survival, radiographic progression-free survival, and serious adverse events (SAEs). RESULTS:Seven trials with 7287 patients comparing 6 treatments (abiraterone acetate, apalutamide, docetaxel, enzalutamide, standard nonsteroidal antiandrogen, and placebo/no treatment) were identified. Ordered from the most to the least effective determined by results of clinical trials, treatments associated with improved overall survival when added to ADT included abiraterone acetate (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% credible interval [CI], 0.54-0.70), apalutamide (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51-0.89), and docetaxel (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71-0.89); treatments associated with improved radiographic progression-free survival when added to ADT included enzalutamide (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.30-0.50), apalutamide (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.39-0.60), abiraterone acetate (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.45-0.58), and docetaxel (HR, 0.67; 95% CI 0.60-0.74). Docetaxel was associated with substantially increased SAEs (odds ratio, 23.72; 95% CI, 13.37-45.15), abiraterone acetate with slightly increased SAEs (odds ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.10-1.83), and other treatments with no significant increase in SAEs. Risk of bias was noted for 4 trials with open-label design, 3 trials with missing data, and 2 trials with potential unprespecified analyses. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:In this network meta-analysis, as add-on treatments to ADT, abiraterone acetate and apalutamide may provide the largest overall survival benefits with relatively low SAE risks. Although enzalutamide may improve radiographic progression-free survival to the greatest extent, longer follow-up is needed to examine the overall survival benefits associated with enzalutamide.
10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.6973
Psychosocial and psychological interventions for relapse prevention in schizophrenia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Bighelli Irene,Rodolico Alessandro,García-Mieres Helena,Pitschel-Walz Gabi,Hansen Wulf-Peter,Schneider-Thoma Johannes,Siafis Spyridon,Wu Hui,Wang Dongfang,Salanti Georgia,Furukawa Toshi A,Barbui Corrado,Leucht Stefan
The lancet. Psychiatry
BACKGROUND:Many psychosocial and psychological interventions are used in patients with schizophrenia, but their comparative efficacy in the prevention of relapse is not known. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of psychosocial and psychological interventions for relapse prevention in schizophrenia. METHODS:To conduct this systematic review and network meta-analysis we searched for published and unpublished randomised controlled trials that investigated psychosocial or psychological interventions aimed at preventing relapse in patients with schizophrenia. We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, BIOSIS, Cochrane Library, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to Jan 20, 2020, and searched PubMed up to April 14, 2020. We included open and masked studies done in adults with schizophrenia or related disorders. We excluded studies in which all patients were acutely ill, had a concomitant medical or psychiatric disorder, or were prodromal or "at risk of psychosis". Study selection and data extraction were done by two reviewers independently based on published and unpublished reports, and by contacting study authors. Data were extracted about efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability of the interventions; potential effect moderators; and study quality and characteristics. The primary outcome was relapse measured with operationalised criteria or psychiatric hospital admissions. We did random-effects network meta-analysis to calculate odds ratios (ORs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019147884. FINDINGS:We identified 27 765 studies through the database search and 330 through references of previous reviews and studies. We screened 28 000 records after duplicates were removed. 24 406 records were excluded by title and abstract screening and 3594 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. 3350 articles were then excluded for a variety of reasons, and 244 full-text articles corresponding to 85 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Of these, 72 studies with 10 364 participants (3939 females and 5716 males with sex indicated) were included in the network meta-analysis. The randomised controlled trials included compared 20 psychological interventions given mainly as add-on to antipsychotics. Ethnicity data were not available. Family interventions (OR 0·35, 95% CI 0·24-0·52), relapse prevention programmes (OR 0·33, 0·14-0·79), cognitive behavioural therapy (OR 0·45, 0·27-0·75), family psychoeducation (OR 0·56, 0·39-0·82), integrated interventions (OR 0·62, 0·44-0·87), and patient psychoeducation (OR 0·63, 0·42-0·94) reduced relapse more than treatment as usual at 1 year. The confidence in the estimates ranged from moderate to very low. We found no indication of publication bias. INTERPRETATION:We found robust benefits in reducing the risk of relapse for family interventions, family psychoeducation, and cognitive behavioral therapy. These treatments should be the first psychosocial interventions to be considered in the long-term treatment for patients with schizophrenia. FUNDING:German Ministry for Education and Research.
10.1016/S2215-0366(21)00243-1
Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Depression: A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Network Meta-analysis.
JAMA psychiatry
Importance:Personalized treatment choices would increase the effectiveness of internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT) for depression to the extent that patients differ in interventions that better suit them. Objective:To provide personalized estimates of short-term and long-term relative efficacy of guided and unguided iCBT for depression using patient-level information. Data Sources:We searched PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo, and Cochrane Library to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published up to January 1, 2019. Study Selection:Eligible RCTs were those comparing guided or unguided iCBT against each other or against any control intervention in individuals with depression. Available individual patient data (IPD) was collected from all eligible studies. Depression symptom severity was assessed after treatment, 6 months, and 12 months after randomization. Data Extraction and Synthesis:We conducted a systematic review and IPD network meta-analysis and estimated relative treatment effect sizes across different patient characteristics through IPD network meta-regression. Main Outcomes and Measures:Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores. Results:Of 42 eligible RCTs, 39 studies comprising 9751 participants with depression contributed IPD to the IPD network meta-analysis, of which 8107 IPD were synthesized. Overall, both guided and unguided iCBT were associated with more effectiveness as measured by PHQ-9 scores than control treatments over the short term and the long term. Guided iCBT was associated with more effectiveness than unguided iCBT (mean difference [MD] in posttreatment PHQ-9 scores, -0.8; 95% CI, -1.4 to -0.2), but we found no evidence of a difference at 6 or 12 months following randomization. Baseline depression was found to be the most important modifier of the relative association for efficacy of guided vs unguided iCBT. Differences between unguided and guided iCBT in people with baseline symptoms of subthreshold depression (PHQ-9 scores 5-9) were small, while guided iCBT was associated with overall better outcomes in patients with baseline PHQ-9 greater than 9. Conclusions and Relevance:In this network meta-analysis with IPD, guided iCBT was associated with more effectiveness than unguided iCBT for individuals with depression, benefits were more substantial in individuals with moderate to severe depression. Unguided iCBT was associated with similar effectiveness among individuals with symptoms of mild/subthreshold depression. Personalized treatment selection is entirely possible and necessary to ensure the best allocation of treatment resources for depression.
10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.4364
Mood stabilizers and/or antipsychotics for bipolar disorder in the maintenance phase: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Molecular psychiatry
We searched Embase, PubMed, and CENTRAL from inception until 22 May 2020 to investigate which antipsychotics and/or mood stabilizers are better for patients with bipolar disorder in the maintenance phase. We performed two categorical network meta-analyses. The first included monotherapy studies and studies in which the two drugs used were specified (i.e., aripiprazole, aripiprazole once monthly, aripiprazole+lamotrigine, aripiprazole+valproate, asenapine, carbamazepine, lamotrigine, lamotrigine+valproate, lithium, lithium+oxcarbazepine, lithium+valproate, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone long-acting injection, valproate, and placebo). The second included studies on second-generation antipsychotic combination therapies (SGAs) (i.e., aripiprazole, lurasidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, and ziprasidone) with lithium or valproate (LIT/VAL) compared with placebo with LIT/VAL. Outcomes were recurrence/relapse rate of any mood episode (RR-any, primary), depressive episode (RR-dep) and manic/hypomanic/mixed episode (RR-mania), discontinuation, mortality, and individual adverse events. Risk ratios and 95% credible interval were calculated. Forty-one randomized controlled trials were identified (n = 9821; mean study duration, 70.5 ± 36.6 weeks; percent female, 54.1%; mean age, 40.7 years). All active treatments other than carbamazepine, lamotrigine+valproate (no data) and paliperidone outperformed the placebo for RR-any. Aripiprazole+valproate, lamotrigine, lamotrigine+valproate, lithium, olanzapine, and quetiapine outperformed placebo for RR-dep. All active treatments, other than aripiprazole+valproate, carbamazepine, lamotrigine, and lamotrigine+valproate, outperformed placebo for RR-mania. Asenapine, lithium, olanzapine, quetiapine, and valproate outperformed placebo for all-cause discontinuation. All SGAs+LIT/VALs other than olanzapine+LIT/VAL outperformed placebo+LIT/VAL for RR-any. Lurasidone+LIT/VAL and quetiapine+LIT/VAL outperformed placebo+LIT/VAL for RR-dep. Aripiprazole+LIT/VAL and quetiapine+LIT/VAL outperformed placebo+LIT/VAL for RR-mania. Lurasidone+LIT/VAL and quetiapine+LIT/VAL outperformed placebo+LIT/VAL for all-cause discontinuation. Treatment efficacy, tolerability, and safety profiles differed among treatments.
10.1038/s41380-020-00946-6
Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Zhou Xinyu,Teng Teng,Zhang Yuqing,Del Giovane Cinzia,Furukawa Toshi A,Weisz John R,Li Xuemei,Cuijpers Pim,Coghill David,Xiang Yajie,Hetrick Sarah E,Leucht Stefan,Qin Mengchang,Barth Jürgen,Ravindran Arun V,Yang Lining,Curry John,Fan Li,Silva Susan G,Cipriani Andrea,Xie Peng
The lancet. Psychiatry
BACKGROUND:Depressive disorders are common in children and adolescents. Antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination are often used in routine clinical practice; however, available evidence on the comparative efficacy and safety of these interventions is inconclusive. Therefore, we sought to compare and rank all available treatment interventions for the acute treatment of depressive disorders in children and adolescents. METHODS:We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, PsycINFO, ProQuest, CINAHL, LiLACS, international trial registries, and the websites of regulatory agencies for published and unpublished randomised controlled trials from database inception until Jan 1, 2019. We included placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials of 16 antidepressants, seven psychotherapies, and five combinations of antidepressant and psychotherapy that are used for the acute treatment of children and adolescents (≤18 years old and of both sexes) with depressive disorder diagnosed according to standard operationalised criteria. Trials recruiting participants with treatment-resistant depression, bipolar disorder, psychotic depression, treatment duration of less than 4 weeks, or an overall sample size of fewer than ten patients were excluded. We extracted data following a predefined hierarchy of outcome measures, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using validated methods. Primary outcomes were efficacy (change in depressive symptoms) and acceptability (treatment discontinuation due to any cause). We estimated summary standardised mean differences (SMDs) or odds ratios (ORs) with credible intervals (CrIs) using network meta-analysis with random effects. This study was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42015020841. FINDINGS:From 20 366 publications, we included 71 trials (9510 participants). Depressive disorders in most studies were moderate to severe. In terms of efficacy, fluoxetine plus cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was more effective than CBT alone (-0·78, 95% CrI -1·55 to -0·01) and psychodynamic therapy (-1·14, -2·20 to -0·08), but not more effective than fluoxetine alone (-0·22, -0·86 to 0·42). No pharmacotherapy alone was more effective than psychotherapy alone. Only fluoxetine plus CBT and fluoxetine were significantly more effective than pill placebo or psychological controls (SMDs ranged from -1·73 to -0·51); and only interpersonal therapy was more effective than all psychological controls (-1·37 to -0·66). Nortriptyline (SMDs ranged from 1·04 to 2·22) and waiting list (SMDs ranged from 0·67 to 2·08) were less effective than most active interventions. In terms of acceptability, nefazodone and fluoxetine were associated with fewer dropouts than sertraline, imipramine, and desipramine (ORs ranged from 0·17 to 0·50); imipramine was associated with more dropouts than pill placebo, desvenlafaxine, fluoxetine plus CBT, and vilazodone (2·51 to 5·06). Most of the results were rated as "low" to "very low" in terms of confidence of evidence according to Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis. INTERPRETATION:Despite the scarcity of high-quality evidence, fluoxetine (alone or in combination with CBT) seems to be the best choice for the acute treatment of moderate-to-severe depressive disorder in children and adolescents. However, the effects of these interventions might vary between individuals, so patients, carers, and clinicians should carefully balance the risk-benefit profile of efficacy, acceptability, and suicide risk of all active interventions in young patients with depression on a case-by-case basis. FUNDING:National Key Research and Development Program of China.
10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30137-1
How to Do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for Conducting and Reporting Narrative Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Syntheses.
Annual review of psychology
Systematic reviews are characterized by a methodical and replicable methodology and presentation. They involve a comprehensive search to locate all relevant published and unpublished work on a subject; a systematic integration of search results; and a critique of the extent, nature, and quality of evidence in relation to a particular research question. The best reviews synthesize studies to draw broad theoretical conclusions about what a literature means, linking theory to evidence and evidence to theory. This guide describes how to plan, conduct, organize, and present a systematic review of quantitative (meta-analysis) or qualitative (narrative review, meta-synthesis) information. We outline core standards and principles and describe commonly encountered problems. Although this guide targets psychological scientists, its high level of abstraction makes it potentially relevant to any subject area or discipline. We argue that systematic reviews are a key methodology for clarifying whether and how research findings replicate and for explaining possible inconsistencies, and we call for researchers to conduct systematic reviews to help elucidate whether there is a replication crisis.
10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803
Comparative efficacy and tolerability of medications for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children, adolescents, and adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
The lancet. Psychiatry
BACKGROUND:The benefits and safety of medications for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) remain controversial, and guidelines are inconsistent on which medications are preferred across different age groups. We aimed to estimate the comparative efficacy and tolerability of oral medications for ADHD in children, adolescents, and adults. METHODS:We did a literature search for published and unpublished double-blind randomised controlled trials comparing amphetamines (including lisdexamfetamine), atomoxetine, bupropion, clonidine, guanfacine, methylphenidate, and modafinil with each other or placebo. We systematically contacted study authors and drug manufacturers for additional information. Primary outcomes were efficacy (change in severity of ADHD core symptoms based on teachers' and clinicians' ratings) and tolerability (proportion of patients who dropped out of studies because of side-effects) at timepoints closest to 12 weeks, 26 weeks, and 52 weeks. We estimated summary odds ratios (ORs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. We assessed the risk of bias of individual studies with the Cochrane risk of bias tool and confidence of estimates with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach for network meta-analyses. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42014008976. FINDINGS:133 double-blind randomised controlled trials (81 in children and adolescents, 51 in adults, and one in both) were included. The analysis of efficacy closest to 12 weeks was based on 10 068 children and adolescents and 8131 adults; the analysis of tolerability was based on 11 018 children and adolescents and 5362 adults. The confidence of estimates varied from high or moderate (for some comparisons) to low or very low (for most indirect comparisons). For ADHD core symptoms rated by clinicians in children and adolescents closest to 12 weeks, all included drugs were superior to placebo (eg, SMD -1·02, 95% CI -1·19 to -0·85 for amphetamines, -0·78, -0·93 to -0·62 for methylphenidate, -0·56, -0·66 to -0·45 for atomoxetine). By contrast, for available comparisons based on teachers' ratings, only methylphenidate (SMD -0·82, 95% CI -1·16 to -0·48) and modafinil (-0·76, -1·15 to -0·37) were more efficacious than placebo. In adults (clinicians' ratings), amphetamines (SMD -0·79, 95% CI -0·99 to -0·58), methylphenidate (-0·49, -0·64 to -0·35), bupropion (-0·46, -0·85 to -0·07), and atomoxetine (-0·45, -0·58 to -0·32), but not modafinil (0·16, -0·28 to 0·59), were better than placebo. With respect to tolerability, amphetamines were inferior to placebo in both children and adolescents (odds ratio [OR] 2·30, 95% CI 1·36-3·89) and adults (3·26, 1·54-6·92); guanfacine was inferior to placebo in children and adolescents only (2·64, 1·20-5·81); and atomoxetine (2·33, 1·28-4·25), methylphenidate (2·39, 1·40-4·08), and modafinil (4·01, 1·42-11·33) were less well tolerated than placebo in adults only. In head-to-head comparisons, only differences in efficacy (clinicians' ratings) were found, favouring amphetamines over modafinil, atomoxetine, and methylphenidate in both children and adolescents (SMDs -0·46 to -0·24) and adults (-0·94 to -0·29). We did not find sufficient data for the 26-week and 52-week timepoints. INTERPRETATION:Our findings represent the most comprehensive available evidence base to inform patients, families, clinicians, guideline developers, and policymakers on the choice of ADHD medications across age groups. Taking into account both efficacy and safety, evidence from this meta-analysis supports methylphenidate in children and adolescents, and amphetamines in adults, as preferred first-choice medications for the short-term treatment of ADHD. New research should be funded urgently to assess long-term effects of these drugs. FUNDING:Stichting Eunethydis (European Network for Hyperkinetic Disorders), and the UK National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.
10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30269-4
Pharmacotherapies for cannabis use disorder: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
The International journal on drug policy
OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to determine the efficacy and acceptability of pharmacotherapies for cannabis use disorder (CUD). METHODS:We conducted a systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis, searching five electronic databases for randomized placebo-controlled trials of individuals diagnosed with CUD receiving pharmacotherapy with or without concomitant psychotherapy. Primary outcomes were the reduction in cannabis use and retention in treatment. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, discontinuation due to adverse events, total abstinence, withdrawal symptoms, cravings, and CUD severity. We applied a frequentist, random-effects Network Meta-Analysis model to pool effect sizes across trials using standardized mean differences (SMD, g) and rate ratios (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS:We identified a total of 24 trials (n=1912, 74.9% male, mean age 30.2 years). Nabilone (d=-4.47 [-8.15; -0.79]), topiramate (d=-3.80 [-7.06; -0.54]), and fatty-acid amyl hydroxylase inhibitors (d=-2.30 [-4.75; 0.15]) reduced cannabis use relative to placebo. Dronabinol improved retention in treatment (RR=1.27 [1.02; 1.57]), while topiramate worsened treatment retention (RR=0.62 [0.42; 0.91]). Gabapentin reduced cannabis cravings (d=-2.42 [-3.53; -1.32], while vilazodone worsened craving severity (d=1.69 [0.71; 2.66]. Buspirone (RR=1.14 [1.00; 1.29]), venlafaxine (RR=1.78 [1.40; 2.26]), and topiramate (RR=9.10 [1.27; 65.11]) caused more adverse events, while topiramate caused more dropouts due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS:Based on this review, some medications appeared to show promise for treating individual aspects of CUD. However, there is a lack of robust evidence to support any particular pharmacological treatment. There is a need for additional studies to expand the evidence base for CUD pharmacotherapy. While medication strategies may become an integral component for CUD treatment one day, psychosocial interventions should remain the first line given the limitations in the available evidence.
10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103295
Bayesian meta-analysis using SAS PROC BGLIMM.
Research synthesis methods
Meta-analysis is commonly used to compare two treatments. Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a powerful extension for comparing and contrasting multiple treatments simultaneously in a systematic review of multiple clinical trials. Although the practical utility of meta-analysis is apparent, it is not always straightforward to implement, especially for those interested in a Bayesian approach. This paper demonstrates that the recently-developed SAS procedure BGLIMM provides an intuitive and computationally efficient means for conducting Bayesian meta-analysis in SAS, using a worked example of a smoking cessation NMA data set. BGLIMM gives practitioners an effective and simple way to implement Bayesian meta-analysis (pairwise and network, either contrast-based or arm-based) without requiring significant background in coding or statistical modeling. Those familiar with generalized linear mixed models, and especially the SAS procedure GLIMMIX, will find this tutorial a useful introduction to Bayesian meta-analysis in SAS.
10.1002/jrsm.1513
Pitfalls in meta-analysis.
Inflammopharmacology
Systematic reviews with meta-analyses are powerful instruments to synthesize research. If done correctly, they may constitute the highest level of evidence by combining several individual studies. As high-quality evidence is scarce in the field of complementary medicine, meta-analyses of randomized trials may shed new light on both efficacy and safety, but they must be properly conducted. In this commentary to a recently published paper we elaborate on methodological pitfalls in meta-analysis that every researcher should avoid to gain true high-quality evidence.
10.1007/s10787-019-00606-4
Reviewing and assessing existing meta-analysis models and tools.
Briefings in bioinformatics
Over the past few years, meta-analysis has become popular among biomedical researchers for detecting biomarkers across multiple cohort studies with increased predictive power. Combining datasets from different sources increases sample size, thus overcoming the issue related to limited sample size from each individual study and boosting the predictive power. This leads to an increased likelihood of more accurately predicting differentially expressed genes/proteins or significant biomarkers underlying the biological condition of interest. Currently, several meta-analysis methods and tools exist, each having its own strengths and limitations. In this paper, we survey existing meta-analysis methods, and assess the performance of different methods based on results from different datasets as well as assessment from prior knowledge of each method. This provides a reference summary of meta-analysis models and tools, which helps to guide end-users on the choice of appropriate models or tools for given types of datasets and enables developers to consider current advances when planning the development of new meta-analysis models and more practical integrative tools.
10.1093/bib/bbab324
Meta-analysis as a system of springs.
Papakonstantinou Theodoros,Nikolakopoulou Adriani,Egger Matthias,Salanti Georgia
Research synthesis methods
Meta-analysis results are usually presented in forest plots, which show the individual study results and the summary effect along with their confidence intervals. In this paper, we propose a system of linear springs as a mechanical analogue of meta-analysis that enables visualization and enhances intuition. The length of a spring corresponds to a study treatment effect and the stiffness of the spring corresponds to its inverse variance. To synthesize study springs we use two main operations: connection in parallel and connection in series. We show the equivalence between meta-analysis and linear springs for fixed effect and random effects pairwise meta-analysis and we also derive indirect treatment effects. We use examples to illustrate the different meta-analytical schemes using the corresponding system of springs. The proposed visualization can serve as an educational tool, especially useful for researchers with no statistical background. The analogy between meta-analysis and springs facilitates intuition for notions such as heterogeneity and the differences between fixed and random effects meta-analysis.
10.1002/jrsm.1470
Management of paediatric obstructive sleep apnoea: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
International journal of paediatric dentistry
BACKGROUND:Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) affects many children, and adenotonsillar hypertrophy is the most common cause of paediatric OSA. AIM:Despite the growing treatment options, there is no comprehensive comparison of all interventions. We aimed to compare and rank the effectiveness of various treatments in a network meta-analysis. DESIGN:Literature was searched from inception to 13 May 2018 for paediatric OSA with adenotonsillar hypertrophy. The outcomes were the changes in apnoea-hypopnea index (AHI), oxyhaemoglobin desaturation index (ODI), and lowest arterial oxygen saturation (SaO ). Frequentist approach to network meta-analysis was used. Treatment hierarchy was summarized according to the surfaces under the cumulative ranking curves. RESULTS:Fourteen trials comprising 1064 paediatric OSA participants evaluating ten interventions (adenotonsillectomy, adenotonsillectomy + pharyngoplasty, adenotonsillotomy, antimicrobial therapy, steroids, leukotriene receptor antagonists [LTRAs], steroids + LTRAs, rapid maxillary expansion [RME], placebo, and no treatment) were identified for network meta-analysis. In terms of effectiveness in AHI reduction, surgical approach was still the most effective intervention than no treatment. RME was one of the most effective interventions to improve lowest SaO . No comparisons showed statistical significance in reducing ODI. CONCLUSIONS:Irrespective of the intervention used, complete resolution of OSA was not achieved in most trials.
10.1111/ipd.12593
Progress and challenges of network meta-analysis.
Tian Jinhui,Gao Ya,Zhang Junhua,Yang Zhirong,Dong Shengjie,Zhang Tiansong,Sun Feng,Wu Shanshan,Wu Jiarui,Wang Junfeng,Yao Liang,Ge Long,Li Lun,Shi Chunhu,Wang Quan,Li Jiang,Zhao Ye,Xiao Yue,Yang Fengwen,Fan Jinchun,Bao Shisan,Song Fujian
Journal of evidence-based medicine
In the past years, network meta-analysis (NMA) has been widely used among clinicians, guideline makers, and health technology assessment agencies and has played an important role in clinical decision-making and guideline development. To inform further development of NMAs, we conducted a bibliometric analysis to assess the current status of published NMA methodological studies, summarized the methodological progress of seven types of NMAs, and discussed the current challenges of NMAs.
10.1111/jebm.12443
A meta-analysis of procedures to change implicit measures.
Journal of personality and social psychology
Using a novel technique known as network meta-analysis, we synthesized evidence from 492 studies (87,418 participants) to investigate the effectiveness of procedures in changing implicit measures, which we define as response biases on implicit tasks. We also evaluated these procedures' effects on explicit and behavioral measures. We found that implicit measures can be changed, but effects are often relatively weak (|s| < .30). Most studies focused on producing short-term changes with brief, single-session manipulations. Procedures that associate sets of concepts, invoke goals or motivations, or tax mental resources changed implicit measures the most, whereas procedures that induced threat, affirmation, or specific moods/emotions changed implicit measures the least. Bias tests suggested that implicit effects could be inflated relative to their true population values. Procedures changed explicit measures less consistently and to a smaller degree than implicit measures and generally produced trivial changes in behavior. Finally, changes in implicit measures did not mediate changes in explicit measures or behavior. Our findings suggest that changes in implicit measures are possible, but those changes do not necessarily translate into changes in explicit measures or behavior. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
10.1037/pspa0000160
Network meta-analysis: application and practice using Stata.
Shim Sungryul,Yoon Byung-Ho,Shin In-Soo,Bae Jong-Myon
Epidemiology and health
This review aimed to arrange the concepts of a network meta-analysis (NMA) and to demonstrate the analytical process of NMA using Stata software under frequentist framework. The NMA tries to synthesize evidences for a decision making by evaluating the comparative effectiveness of more than two alternative interventions for the same condition. Before conducting a NMA, 3 major assumptions-similarity, transitivity, and consistency-should be checked. The statistical analysis consists of 5 steps. The first step is to draw a network geometry to provide an overview of the network relationship. The second step checks the assumption of consistency. The third step is to make the network forest plot or interval plot in order to illustrate the summary size of comparative effectiveness among various interventions. The fourth step calculates cumulative rankings for identifying superiority among interventions. The last step evaluates publication bias or effect modifiers for a valid inference from results. The synthesized evidences through five steps would be very useful to evidence-based decision-making in healthcare. Thus, NMA should be activated in order to guarantee the quality of healthcare system.
10.4178/epih.e2017047
Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.
Stroup D F,Berlin J A,Morton S C,Olkin I,Williamson G D,Rennie D,Moher D,Becker B J,Sipe T A,Thacker S B
JAMA
OBJECTIVE:Because of the pressure for timely, informed decisions in public health and clinical practice and the explosion of information in the scientific literature, research results must be synthesized. Meta-analyses are increasingly used to address this problem, and they often evaluate observational studies. A workshop was held in Atlanta, Ga, in April 1997, to examine the reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies and to make recommendations to aid authors, reviewers, editors, and readers. PARTICIPANTS:Twenty-seven participants were selected by a steering committee, based on expertise in clinical practice, trials, statistics, epidemiology, social sciences, and biomedical editing. Deliberations of the workshop were open to other interested scientists. Funding for this activity was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. EVIDENCE:We conducted a systematic review of the published literature on the conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in observational studies using MEDLINE, Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), PsycLIT, and the Current Index to Statistics. We also examined reference lists of the 32 studies retrieved and contacted experts in the field. Participants were assigned to small-group discussions on the subjects of bias, searching and abstracting, heterogeneity, study categorization, and statistical methods. CONSENSUS PROCESS:From the material presented at the workshop, the authors developed a checklist summarizing recommendations for reporting meta-analyses of observational studies. The checklist and supporting evidence were circulated to all conference attendees and additional experts. All suggestions for revisions were addressed. CONCLUSIONS:The proposed checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers. An evaluation plan is suggested and research areas are explored.
10.1001/jama.283.15.2008