共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
Fariba Ahmadizar N. Charlotte Onland-Moret Anthonius de Boer Geoffrey Liu Anke H. Maitland-van der Zee 《PloS one》2015,10(9)
Aim
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in the adjuvant cancer therapy setting within different subset of patients.Methods & Design/ Results
PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane and Clinical trials.gov databases were searched for English language studies of randomized controlled trials comparing bevacizumab and adjuvant therapy with adjuvant therapy alone published from January 1966 to 7th of May 2014. Progression free survival, overall survival, overall response rate, safety and quality of life were analyzed using random- or fixed-effects models according to the PRISMA guidelines. We obtained data from 44 randomized controlled trials (30,828 patients). Combining bevacizumab with different adjuvant therapies resulted in significant improvement of progression free survival (log hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.84–0.89), overall survival (log hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94–0.98) and overall response rate (relative risk, 1.46; 95% CI: 1.33–1.59) compared to adjuvant therapy alone in all studied tumor types. In subgroup analyses, there were no interactions of bevacizumab with baseline characteristics on progression free survival and overall survival, while overall response rate was influenced by tumor type and bevacizumab dose (p-value: 0.02). Although bevacizumab use resulted in additional expected adverse drug reactions except anemia and fatigue, it was not associated with a significant decline in quality of life. There was a trend towards a higher risk of several side effects in patients treated by high-dose bevacizumab compared to the low-dose e.g. all grade proteinuria (9.24; 95% CI: 6.60–12.94 vs. 2.64; 95% CI: 1.29–5.40).Conclusions
Combining bevacizumab with different adjuvant therapies provides a survival benefit across all major subsets of patients, including by tumor type, type of adjuvant therapy, and duration and dose of bevacizumab therapy. Though bevacizumab was associated with increased risks of some adverse drug reactions such as hypertension and bleeding, anemia and fatigue were improved by the addition of bevacizumab. 相似文献2.
Vinay Pasupuleti Angel Arturo Escobedo Abhishek Deshpande Priyaleela Thota Yuani Roman Adrian V. Hernandez 《PLoS neglected tropical diseases》2014,8(3)
Background
Giardiasis is one of the most common causes of diarrheal disease worldwide and 5-nitroimidazoles (5-NI) are the most commonly prescribed drugs for the treatment of giardiasis. We evaluated the efficacy of 5-nitroimidazoles (5-NI) in the treatment of giardiasis in a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Methodology/Principal Findings
We conducted a comprehensive literature search in PubMed-Medline, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library for RCTs evaluating the efficacy of 5-NI vs. control (placebo or active treatment) on parasitological cure in patients with parasitologically-demonstrated giardiasis. The search was performed in May 2013 with no language restriction by two authors independently. The efficacy outcome was parasitological cure, and harmful outcomes were abdominal pain, bitter or metallic taste, and headache. We included 30 RCTs (n = 3,930). There was a significant and slightly higher response rate with 5-NI in giardiasis treatment (RR 1.06, 95%CI 1.02–1.11, p = 0.005). There was high heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 72%). The response rates for metronidazole, tinidazole and secnidazole were similar (RR 1.05, 95%CI 1.01–1.09, p = 0.01; RR 1.32 95%CI 1.10–1.59, p = 0.003; and RR 1.18 95%CI 0.93–1.449, p = 0.18, respectively). On subgroup analyses, the response rates did not vary substantially and high heterogeneity persisted (I2 = 57%–80%). Harmful outcomes were uncommon, and 5-NIs were associated with lower risk of abdominal pain, and higher risk of both bitter or metallic taste and headache.Conclusions
Studies investigating the efficacy of 5-NI in giardiasis treatment are highly heterogeneous. 5-NIs have a slightly better efficacy and worse profile for mild harmful outcomes in the treatment of giardiasis in comparison to controls. Larger high quality RCTs are needed to further assess efficacy and safety profiles of 5-NI. 相似文献3.
4.
Background
Sorafenib was FDA approved in 2005 for treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) based on the results of the pivotal phase 3 clinical trial, TARGET (Treatment Approaches in Renal Cancer Global Evaluation Trial). Since that time, numerous clinical studies have been undertaken that substantially broaden our knowledge of the use of sorafenib for this indication.Methods
We systematically reviewed PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and www.clinicaltrials.gov for prospective clinical studies using single agent sorafenib in RCC and published since 2005. Primary endpoints of interest were progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews #CRD42014010765.Results
We identified 30 studies in which 2182 patients were treated with sorafenib, including 1575 patients who participated in randomized controlled phase 3 trials. In these trials, sorafenib was administered as first-, second- or third-line treatment. Heterogeneity among trial designs and reporting of data precluded statistical comparisons among trials or with TARGET. The PFS appeared shorter in second- vs. first-line treatment, consistent with the more advanced tumor status in the second-line setting. In some trials, incidences of grade 3/4 hypertension or hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) were more than double that seen in TARGET (4% and 6%, respectively). These variances may be attributable to increased recognition of HFSR, or potentially differences in dose adjustments, that could be consequences of increased familiarity with sorafenib usage. Several small studies enrolled exclusively Asian patients. These studies reported notably longer PFS than was observed in TARGET. However, no obvious corresponding differences in disease control rate and overall survival were seen.Conclusions
Collectively, more recent experiences using sorafenib in RCC are consistent with results reported for TARGET with no marked changes of response endpoints or new safety signals observed. 相似文献5.
Christine Manyando Eric M. Njunju Umberto D’Alessandro Jean-Pierre Van geertruyden 《PloS one》2013,8(2)
Introduction
Cotrimoxazole (CTX) has been used for half a century. It is inexpensive hence the reason for its almost universal availability and wide clinical spectrum of use. In the last decade, CTX was used for prophylaxis of opportunistic infections in HIV infected people. It also had an impact on the malaria risk in this specific group.Objective
We performed a systematic review to explore the efficacy and safety of CTX used for P.falciparum malaria treatment and prophylaxis.Result
CTX is safe and efficacious against malaria. Up to 75% of the safety concerns relate to skin reactions and this increases in HIV/AIDs patients. In different study areas, in HIV negative individuals, CTX used as malaria treatment cleared 56%–97% of the malaria infections, reduced fever and improved anaemia. CTX prophylaxis reduces the incidence of clinical malaria in HIV-1 infected individuals from 46%–97%. In HIV negative non pregnant participants, CTX prophylaxis had 39.5%–99.5% protective efficacy against clinical malaria. The lowest figures were observed in zones of high sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine resistance. There were no data reported on CTX prophylaxis in HIV negative pregnant women.Conclusion
CTX is safe and still efficacious for the treatment of P.falciparum malaria in non-pregnant adults and children irrespective of HIV status and antifolate resistance profiles. There is need to explore its effect in pregnant women, irrespective of HIV status. CTX prophylaxis in HIV infected individuals protects against malaria and CTX may have a role for malaria prophylaxis in specific HIV negative target groups. 相似文献6.
《Endocrine practice》2020,26(4):454-462
Objective: Comprehensive evidence comparing different medications for acromegaly is scarce. The aim of this study was to perform a network meta-analysis based on evidence from both randomized trials and observational studies of medical treatments for acromegaly.Methods: Electronic databases were searched for both observational studies and randomized trials that enrolled acromegaly patients treated with medications of interest. Simulated trials were generated by a machine learning algorithm and then synthesized with Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses. The main outcome was the rate of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) control after medical treatment.Results: We included 90 studies (100 arms, 4,523 patients) before matching. After matching, 28 simulated trials were generated. Balance of matched arms was checked by spatial distance and correlation matrix. Cotreatment with somatostatin receptor ligands and pegvisomant was the most effective treatment compared with other treatments. In unselected patients, pegvisomant was better than octreotide long-acting release (logOR, 0.85; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.05 to 1.65) or lanreotide (logOR, 1.09, 95% CrI, 0.05 to 2.14), and the mean absolute IGF-1 control rate ranged from 40 to 60%. In partially responsive patients, cotreatment with somatostatin receptor ligands and pegvisomant was similar to pegvisomant monotherapy, ranking as the most two effective treatments, and the mean absolute IGF-1 control rate was over 60%.Conclusion: Our analysis suggested that the combination of data from observational studies and randomized trials in network meta-analysis was feasible. The findings of this network meta-analysis provided robust evidence supporting the current guidelines in treatment strategy for acromegaly.Abbreviations: CrI = credible interval; DA = dopamine agonist; GH = growth hormone; IGF-1 = insulin-like growth factor 1; ITT = intention-to-treat; LAN = lanreotide; LAN-ATG = lanreotide autogel; OCT = octreotide; OCT-LAR = octreotide long acting repeatable; OR = odds ratio; PEG = pegvisomant; PP = per-protocol; SRL = somatostatin receptor ligand 相似文献
7.
Background
Non-cardiovascular chest pain (NCCP) leads to impaired quality of life and is associated with a high disease burden. Upon ruling out cardiovascular disease, only vague recommendations exist for further treatment.Objectives
To summarize treatment efficacy for patients presenting with NCCP.Methods
Systematic review and meta-analysis. In July 2013, Medline, Web of Knowledge, Embase, EBSCOhost, Cochrane Reviews and Trials, and Scopus were searched. Hand and bibliography searches were also conducted. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating non-surgical treatments in patients with NCCP were included. Exclusion criteria were poor study quality and small sample size (<10 patients per group).Results
Thirty eligible RCT’s were included. Most studies assessed PPI efficacy for gastroesophageal reflux disorders (GERD, n = 10). Two RCTs included musculoskeletal chest pain, seven psychotropic drugs, and eleven various psychological interventions. Study quality was high in five RCTs and acceptable in 25. PPI treatment in patients with GERD (5 RCTs, 192 patients) was more effective than placebo [pooled OR 11.7 (95% CI 5.5 to 25.0, heterogeneity I2 = 6.1%)]. The pooled OR in GERD negative patients (4 RCTs, 156 patients) was 0.8 (95% CI 0.2 to 2.8, heterogeneity I2 = 50.4%). In musculoskeletal NCCP (2 RCTs, 229 patients) manual therapy was more effective than usual care but not than home exercise [pooled mean difference 0.5 (95% CI −0.3 to 1.3, heterogeneity I2 = 46.2%)]. The findings for cognitive behavioral treatment, serotonin reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants were mixed. Most evidence was available for cognitive behavioral treatment interventions.Limitations
Only a small number of studies were available.Conclusions
Timely diagnostic evaluation and treatment of the disease underlying NCCP is important. For patients with suspected GERD, high-dose treatment with PPI is effective. Only limited evidence was available for most prevalent diseases manifesting with chest pain. In patients with idiopathic NCCP, treatments based on cognitive behavioral principles might be considered. 相似文献8.
目的:比较西妥昔单抗和贝伐珠单抗治疗晚期结直肠癌的有效性和安全性。方法:选取2014年1月～2017年8月我院收治的晚期结直肠癌患者100例,根据患者入院先后顺序随机分为两组,所有患者均给予FOLFIRI方案进行化疗,A组在化疗的基础上给予贝伐珠单抗进行治疗,B组在化疗的基础上给予西妥昔单抗进行治疗。比较两组患者临床治疗的缓解率、控制率及不良反应的发生情况,对所有患者随访1年,记录并比较两组患者的无进展生存期。结果:两组患者的缓解率、控制率、恶心呕吐、头晕、延迟性腹泻、肝肾损伤、白细胞减少、血小板减少和尿蛋白的发生率相比均无统计学差异(P0.05),但B组患者骨髓抑制和皮疹的发生率显著高于A组(P0.05);两组患者的无进展生存期相比无统计学差异(P0.05)。结论:西妥昔单抗和贝伐珠单抗治疗晚期结直肠癌的临床效果相当,且不良反应较轻,以Ⅰ～Ⅱ度为主,患者均可耐受,对症治疗后均有所缓解。西妥昔单抗易引发骨髓抑制和皮疹,在临床应用过程中需注意并进行有效预防和积极处理。 相似文献
9.
Aim
The benefit of nucleot(s)ide analogues (NA) for hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after curative treatment has been widely debated due to the relatively weak evidence. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of NA on recurrence and survival after curative treatment of HBV-HCC.Methods
A systematic electronic search was performed. All controlled trials comparing NA versus placebo or no treatment were considered for inclusion. Results were expressed as Hazard Ratio for recurrence and survival with 95% confidence intervals using RevMan 5.2.Results
We included 13 trials with 6350 patients. There were significant improvements for recurrence-free survival (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.54–0.80; p<0.0001) and overall survival (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.43–0.73; p<0.0001) in the adjuvant NA group compared with the control group. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. There were no serious adverse effects being reported. Lamivudine resistance was from 28.6% to 37.5% but could be rescued by other types of NA or combination therapy.Conclusion
Our study suggested benefits of adjuvant NA therapy following curative treatment of HBV-HCC. Since the great proven efficacy of NA in improving clinical and viral parameters besides HCC, further studies should be focused on broadening the indications for NA therapy after curative treatment of HBV-HCC. 相似文献10.
Nathan Ford Zara Shubber Andrew Hill Marco Vitoria Meg Doherty Edward J. Mills Andy Gray 《PloS one》2013,8(11)
Introduction
Lamivudine and emtricitabine are considered equivalent by several guidelines, but evidence of comparable efficacy is conflicting.Methods
We searched two databases up to June 30 2013 to identify randomized and quasi-randomized trials in which lamivudine and emtricitabine were used as part of combination antiretroviral therapy for treatment-naïve or experienced HIV-positive adult patients. We only included trials where partner drugs in the regimen were identical or could be considered to be comparable. We allowed for comparisons between tenofovir and abacavir provided the study population did not begin treatment with a viral load >100,000 copies/ml.Results
12 trials contributed 15 different randomized comparisons providing data on 2251 patients receiving lamivudine and 2662 patients receiving emtricitabine. Treatment success was not significantly different in any of the 12 trials. In the three trials that directly compared lamivudine and emtricitabine, the relative risk for achieving treatment success was non-significant (RR 1.03 95%CI 0.96-1.10). For all trials combined, the pooled relative risk for treatment success was not significantly different (RR 1.00, 95%CI 0.97–1.02). No heterogeneity was observed (I 2 = 0). Similarly, there was no difference in the pooled relative risk for treatment failure (RR 1.08, 95%CI 0.94–1.22, I 2 = 3.4%).Conclusions
The findings of this systematic review suggest that lamivudine and emtricitabine are clinically equivalent. 相似文献11.
Aaron L. Leppin Pavithra R. Bora Jon C. Tilburt Michael R. Gionfriddo Claudia Zeballos-Palacios Megan M. Dulohery Amit Sood Patricia J. Erwin Juan Pablo Brito Kasey R. Boehmer Victor M. Montori 《PloS one》2014,9(10)
Importance
Poor mental health places a burden on individuals and populations. Resilient persons are able to adapt to life’s challenges and maintain high quality of life and function. Finding effective strategies to bolster resilience in individuals and populations is of interest to many stakeholders.Objectives
To synthesize the evidence for resiliency training programs in improving mental health and capacity in 1) diverse adult populations and 2) persons with chronic diseases.Data Sources
Electronic databases, clinical trial registries, and bibliographies. We also contacted study authors and field experts.Study Selection
Randomized trials assessing the efficacy of any program intended to enhance resilience in adults and published after 1990. No restrictions were made based on outcome measured or comparator used.Data Extraction and Synthesis
Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to extract study characteristics and data. These were confirmed with authors. We conducted a random effects meta-analysis on available data and tested for interaction in planned subgroups.Main Outcomes
The standardized mean difference (SMD) effect of resiliency training programs on 1) resilience/hardiness, 2) quality of life/well-being, 3) self-efficacy/activation, 4) depression, 5) stress, and 6) anxiety.Results
We found 25 small trials at moderate to high risk of bias. Interventions varied in format and theoretical approach. Random effects meta-analysis showed a moderate effect of generalized stress-directed programs on enhancing resilience [pooled SMD 0.37 (95% CI 0.18, 0.57) p = .0002; I2 = 41%] within 3 months of follow up. Improvement in other outcomes was favorable to the interventions and reached statistical significance after removing two studies at high risk of bias. Trauma-induced stress-directed programs significantly improved stress [−0.53 (−1.04, −0.03) p = .03; I2 = 73%] and depression [−0.51 (−0.92, −0.10) p = .04; I2 = 61%].Conclusions
We found evidence warranting low confidence that resiliency training programs have a small to moderate effect at improving resilience and other mental health outcomes. Further study is needed to better define the resilience construct and to design interventions specific to it.Registration Number
PROSPERO #CRD42014007185 相似文献12.
Alessandro Battaggia Alberto Donzelli Maria Font Davide Molteni Antonio Galvano 《PloS one》2015,10(4)
Background
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) about Ezetimibe''s efficacy on patient-oriented outcomes have given discordant results. The aim of this study was to determine the net effect of Ezetimibe and of the widely marketed combination, Ezetimibe+simvastatin, on mortality and morbidity outcomes.Methods and Findings
We searched for RCT on Ezetimibe using MEDLINE, CCTR, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov databases up to December 2013, Merck and Novartis online registers, and personal communications. Two authors independently selected trials fulfilling these criteria: RCTs comparing Ezetimibe±statin or another lipid-lowering drug against placebo, or against the same lipid-lowering drug at the same dosage, with a follow-up at least 24 weeks and one or more of these outcomes: all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), cancer, serious adverse events (SAEs); we assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane checklist. We extracted the data for major clinical events as a dichotomous measure, with the patient the unit of analysis. Pooled analysis was done with random and fixed effect based models. Trials comparing Ezetimibe plus a lipid-lowering drug against the same lipidlowering drug representing the net effect of Ezetimibe, showed a nonsignificant tendency toward damage for cancer, MI, stroke and SAEs. Ezetimibe+simvastatin vs. simvastatin alone showed a stronger tendency towards a higher risk for all-cause death (2.52; 0.65-9.74), CV death (3.04; 0.48-19.21), non-CV death (3.03; 0.12-73.50), MI (1.91; 0.42-8.70), stroke (2.38; 0.46-12.35), cancer (RR 11.11; 0.62-198.29), and SAEs (1.45; 0.95-2.23). Limitations include small numbers of events and inadequate power of the pooling. Trials comparing Ezetimibe+simvastatin vs placebo showed non-significant effects: MI (0.81; 0.66-1.00 p = 0.051), all-cause death (1.02; 0.95-1.09), CV death (0.91; 0.80-1.04), non-CV death (108; 0.99-1.18), stroke (0.86; 0.72-1.04), cancer (1.18; 0.80-1.74), SAEs (1.01; 0.96-1.06).Conclusions
Ezetimibe±simvastatin had inconsistent effects on important outcomes. No firm conclusions are possible, but findings indicative of damage suggest much more selective use of Ezetimibe±simvastatin. 相似文献13.
14.
Juan Li Pratika Y. Hernanda Wichor M. Bramer Maikel P. Peppelenbosch Judith van Luijk Qiuwei Pan 《PloS one》2015,10(6)
Background
Several studies have reported that metformin can reduce the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in diabetes patients. However, the direct anti-HCC effects of metformin have hardly been studied in patients, but have been extensively investigated in animal models of HCC. We therefore performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of animal studies evaluating the effects of metformin on HCC.Methods
We collected the relevant studies by searching EMBASE, Medline (OvidSP), Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed Publisher, and Google Scholar. Studies were included according to the following inclusion criteria: HCC, animal study, and metformin intervention. Study quality was assessed using SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool. A meta-analysis was performed for the outcome measures: tumor growth (tumor volume, weight and size), tumor number and incidence.Results
The search resulted in 573 references, of which 13 could be included in the review and 12 included in the meta-analysis. The study characteristics of the included studies varied considerably. Two studies used rats, while the others used mice. Only one study used female animals, nine used male, and three studies didn’t mention the gender of animals in their experiments. The quality of the included studies was low to moderate based on the assessment of their risk of bias. The meta-analysis showed that metformin significantly inhibited the growth of HCC tumour (SMD -2.20[-2.96,-1.43]; n=16), but no significant effect on the number of tumors (SMD-1.05[-2.13,0.03]; n=5) or the incidence of HCC was observed (RR 0.62[0.33,1.16]; n=6). To investigate the potential sources of significant heterogeneities found in outcome of tumor growth (I2=81%), subgroup analyses of scales of growth measures and of types of animal models used were performed.Conclusion
Metformin appears to have a direct anti-HCC effect in animal models. Although the intrinsic limitations of animal studies, this systematic review could provide an important reference for future preclinical animal trials of good quality and clinical development. 相似文献15.
目的:探讨中晚期肝细胞癌(HCC)采用肝动脉化疗栓塞联合索拉菲尼治疗的临床疗效。方法:按照随机数字表法将2012年3月-2014年3月我院收治的中晚期HCC患者分为两组,对照组行肝动脉化疗栓塞术治疗,观察组在对照组基础上联合索拉菲尼治疗。比较两组的疗效,毒副反应及远期生存率。结果:观察组患者治疗后6个月的临床疗效优于对照组,差异有统计学意义(Z=-2.316,P=0.021),观察组有效率52.50%,高于对照组的28.21%,差异有统计学意义(x2=4.837,P=0.028)。治疗后观察组手足皮肤反应和口腔黏膜炎症的发生率为22.50%、25.00%,分别高于对照组的5.13%、5.13%,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。观察组6、12个月的生存率为95.00%、85.00%,分别高于对照组的79.49%、64.10%,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:肝动脉化疗栓塞联合索拉菲尼治疗HCC具有疗效好、明显延长患者生存时间的特点,临床有重要的参考价值。 相似文献
16.
Jonathan C. Ellis 《The Western journal of medicine》1988,149(2):183-187
In patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, early diagnosis offers the only hope for resection and cure. Data from Asia, where it is closely associated with viral hepatitis, indicate that serum α-fetoprotein assay and abdominal ultrasonography are the most effective and feasible screening tests. These data may not be applicable in America, where most patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma have underlying alcoholic cirrhosis. Also, it is unclear whether resecting “curable” lesions prolongs survival, particularly in patients with cirrhosis. Screening trials are indicated to answer these questions. Preventing risk factors, however, especially hepatitis B viral disease, is of paramount importance throughout the world. 相似文献
17.
Objective
To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of leflunomide as a new immunosuppressive medicine in lupus nephritis (LN) through a meta-analysis.Methods
A systematic review evaluating the efficacy and safety of leflunomide compared with cyclophosphamide in adult patients with LN was performed. Data from relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) performed before December 2014 was collected from several databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI and CBM). No language restrictions were applied. Efficacy outcomes included overall remission, SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) score, 24-hour proteinuria and serum creatinine. Safety data were analyzed. The effects of treatment on these outcomes were summarized as relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and mean differences were pooled using a fixed or random effects model.Results
Eleven RCTs with Jadad score of 3 or greater were identified and included a total of 254 patients. Cyclophosphamide was served as the control drug in all trials. The SLEDAI score, urine protein level and serum creatinine decreased significantly following leflunomide treatment (P<0.05). Leflunomide was superior to cyclophosphamide in achieving complete and total remission, but no difference in SLEDAI score was found between these two treatments (P>0.05). Additionally, patients receiving leflunomide treatment showed favorable renal function profiles, especially regarding the 24-hour proteinuria (mean difference: -0.58, 95%CI: -0.78~-0.37, P<0.01) and serum creatinine (mean difference: -0.20, 95%CI: -0.39~-0.01, P<0.05). In the safety comparison, leflunomide was safer than cyclophosphamide regarding adverse drug reactions (ADRs), including liver damage (RR = 0.53, 95%CI: 0.33~0.87, P<0.05), alopecia (RR = 0.38, 95%CI: 0.17~0.85, P<0.05), leukopenia (RR = 0.25, 95%CI: 0.08~0.77, P<0.05) and infection (RR = 0.54, 95%CI: 0.32~0.92, P<0.05), without increased risk of gastrointestinal reaction, rash or herpes zoster infection.Conclusions
Leflunomide is a promising therapy for LN treatment, primarily because of the comparable efficacy and favorable safety profile determined by this meta-analysis of RCTs. Larger RCTs with longer duration of observation are necessary to provide strong evidence of the efficacy and safety of leflunomide in LN patients. 相似文献18.
目的:探讨晚期结直肠癌采用贝伐珠单抗联合化疗的临床疗效,为临床治疗提供参考。方法:按照随机数字表法将2010年2月~2013年2月我院收治的50例晚期结直肠癌患者分为两组,观察组采用贝伐珠单抗联合奥沙利铂,卡培他滨化疗,对照组单用奥沙利铂,卡培他滨进行化疗,比较两组的临床疗效、血清肿瘤标志物浓度变化及不良反应。结果:化疗4个周期后观察组有效率为56.00%高于对照组的24.00%,差异有统计学意义(P0.01),观察组疾病控制率为84.00%高于对照组的60.00%,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);观察组治疗后的CEA、CA242、CA19-9浓度均低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.01);化疗后两组不良反应主要有恶心、呕吐、食欲减低等胃肠道反应,乏力,肝功能损害,骨髓抑制,脱发,贫血以及中性粒细胞下降等,其中观察组乏力,肝功能损害发生率低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05),其余不良反应两组差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:结直肠癌采用贝伐珠单抗联合化疗治疗具有近期疗效好,安全性高等特点,临床有重要参考价值。 相似文献
19.
Backgroud and Objective
Nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (NSRH) may be associated with lower postoperative morbidity than radical hysterectomy (RH). We aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of abdominal or laparoscopic NSRH and RH for treating cervical cancer through systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods
PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were systematically searched for all relevant studies. Data were abstracted independently by two reviewers. A meta-analysis was performed to compare intra- and postoperative outcomes for the two techniques.Results
A total of 17 clinical trials were identified. Meta-analysis showed that although operating time was significantly longer for abdominal or laparoscopic NSRH than for RH, NSRH based on laparotomy or laparoscopy proved more effective for postoperative recovery of bladder function. NSRH was also associated with lower bladder dysfunction morbidity and fewer postoperative complications. Two abdominal trials and one laparoscopic study further suggested that NSRH was associated with shorter time to recovery of anal/rectal function. In contrast, RH and NSRH based on laparotomy or laparoscopy were similar in terms of extent of resection, recurrence rate, survival rate, blood loss and frequency of intraoperative complications. The meta-analysis showed that abdominal NSRH was not significantly different from RH in length of hospital stay, while one trial suggested that length of hospital stay was shorter after laparoscopic NSRH than after the corresponding RH.Conclusion
NSRH may be a reliable technique for treating early cervical cancer. Available evidence suggests that it is better than RH for postoperative recovery of pelvic organ function and postoperative morbidity, while the two techniques involve similar clinical safety and extent of resection. These results should be considered preliminary since they are based on a relatively small number of controlled trials, most of which were non-randomized. The findings should be verified in larger, well-designed studies. 相似文献20.