Efficacy and Safety Assessment of the Addition of Bevacizumab to Adjuvant Therapy Agents in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

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 7^th 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.     

Effect of Combination Therapy on Joint Destruction in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Despite significant cost differences, the comparative effect of combination treatments of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) with and without biologic agents has rarely been examined. Thus we performed a network meta-analysis on the effect of combination therapies on progression of radiographic joint erosions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods and Findings

The following combination drug therapies compared versus single DMARD were investigated: Double DMARD: 2 DMARDs (methotrexate, sulfasalazine, leflunomide, injectable gold, cyclosporine, chloroquine, azathioprin, penicillamin) or 1 DMARD plus low dose glucocorticoid (LDGC); triple DMARD: 3 DMARDs or 2 DMARDs plus LDGC; biologic combination: 1 DMARD plus biologic agent (tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor (TNFi) or abatacept or tocilizumab or CD20 inhibitor (CD20i)). Randomized controlled trials were identified in a search of electronic archives of biomedical literature and included in a star-shaped network meta-analysis and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement protocol. Effects are reported as standardized mean differences (SMD). The effects of data from 39 trials published in the period 1989–2012 were as follows: Double DMARD: −0.32 SMD (CI: −0.42, −0.22); triple DMARD: −0.46 SMD (CI: −0.60, −0.31); 1 DMARD plus TNFi: −0.30 SMD (CI: −0.36, −0.25); 1 DMARD plus abatacept: −0.20 SMD (CI: −0.33, −0.07); 1 DMARD plus tocilizumab: −0.34 SMD (CI: −0.48, −0.20); 1 DMARD plus CD20i: −0.32 SMD (CI: −0.40, −0.24). The indirect comparisons showed similar effects between combination treatments apart from triple DMARD being significantly better than abatacept plus methotrexate (−0.26 SMD (CI: −0.45, −0.07)) and TNFi plus methotrexate (−0.16 SMD (CI: −0.31, −0.01)).

Conclusion

Combination treatment of a biologic agent with 1 DMARD is not superior to 2–3 DMARDs including or excluding LDGC in preventing structural joint damage. Future randomized studies of biologic agents should be compared versus a combination of DMARDs.     

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Pamidronate Therapy on Bone Mass Density in Early Post-Renal Transplant Period: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Introduction

The overall effect of pamidronate on bone mass density (BMD) in the early renal transplant period varies considerably among studies. The effects of pamidronate on graft function have not been determined.

Materials and Methods

A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Embase independently by two authors. Randomized controlled trials of pamidronate evaluating bone loss in the first year of renal transplantation were included. Methods reported in the “Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.0.2” were used to evaluate changes of lumbar spine and femoral neck BMD, and serum creatinine, calcium and intact parathyroid hormone (iPTH) levels. Fixed or random effect models were used as appropriate.

Results

Six randomized trials evaluating 281 patients were identified. One hundred forty-four were treated with pamidronate and 137 were control patients. Administration of pamidronate was associated with significant reduction of bone loss in the lumbar spine, compared to the control group (standardized mean difference (SMD)  = 24.62 [16.25, 32.99]). There was no difference between the pamidronate treated and control femoral neck BMD (SMD  = 3.53 [−1.84, 8.90]). A significant increase in the serum creatinine level of the intervention group was seen, compared to the control group. The serum calcium and iPTH of the pamidronate and control groups were not different after 1 year (serum creatinine: SMD  = −3.101 [−5.33, −0.89]; serum calcium: SMD  = 2.18 [−0.8, 5.16]; serum iPTH: SMD  = 0.06 [−0.19, 0.31]). Heterogeneity was low for serum calcium and iPTH and high for serum creatinine.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis demonstrated the beneficial clinical efficacy of pamidronate on BMD with no association with any alteration in graft function during the first year of renal transplantation. Significant heterogeneity precludes the conclusion of the relationship between serum creatinine and pamidronate.     

Comparison of Clinical Efficacy and Safety between Indacaterol and Tiotropium in COPD: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Two once-daily inhaled bronchodilators, indacaterol and tiotropium, are widely used as first-line therapy in stable COPD patients. This study was performed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety between indacaterol and tiotropium in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to identify all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) at week 12. Four RCTs were eligible for inclusion (three RCTs with moderate-to-severe COPD patients and one RCT with only severe COPD patients). Trough FEV₁ at weeks 12 and 26 were not significantly different between indacaterol and tiotropium by the standardized mean difference with 0.014 (95% CI, -0.036, 0.063, I²= 23.5%) and with 0.037 (95% CI, -0.059 to 0.133, I²= 0%) along with differences in means of 0.003L and 0.014L, respectively. Indacaterol and tiotropium also showed similar St. George`s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total scores and percentages of patients with SGRQ improvement (≥ 4 units) at week 26. The incidences of nasopharyngitis, serious cardiovascular events, and serious adverse events were not different between indacaterol and tiotropium, while those of cough (OR = 1.68, P < 0.001, and RR = 1.63) and COPD worsening (OR = 1.18, P = 0.003, and RR = 1.12) were higher for indacaterol than tiotropium. However, when one study with only severe COPD patients was removed from the meta-analysis, the difference in the incidence of COPD worsening between indacaterol and tiotropium became non-significant (OR = 1.13, P = 0.204, and RR = 1.09). The clinical efficacy and serious adverse events between indacaterol and tiotropium were equivocal in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Cough is a common complaint associated with indacaterol, and COPD worsening needs to be carefully monitored in severe COPD patients when treated with indacaterol.     

Role of Gemcitabine and Pemetrexed as Maintenance Therapy in Advanced NSCLC: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Gemcitabine and pemetrexed have been used as maintenance therapy. However, few systematic reviews and meta-analyses have assessed their effects in the newest studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the role of gemcitabine and pemetrexed in the maintenance treatment of non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC).

Methods

We performed a literature search using PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases from their inceptions to September 16, 2015. We also searched the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) databases from 2008 to 2015. Two authors independently extracted the data. The Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias graph was used to assess the risk of bias. The GRADE system was used to assess the grading of evidence, and a meta-analysis was conducted using Stata 11.0 software.

Results

Eleven randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies were collected. Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis and divided into the following 4 groups: gemcitabine vs. best supportive care (BSC)/observation, pemetrexed vs. BSC/placebo, pemetrexed + bevacizumab vs. bevacizumab and pemetrexed vs. bevacizumab. Gemcitabine exhibited significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with BSC (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.62, p = 0.000). Pemetrexed exhibited significantly improved PFS (HR = 0.54, p = 0.000) and OS (HR = 0.75, p = 0.000) compared with BSC. Pemetrexed + bevacizumab almost exhibited significantly improved PFS (HR = 0.71, p = 0.051) compared with bevacizumab. Pemetrexed exhibited no improvement in PFS or overall survival (OS) compared with bevacizumab. Regarding the grade, the GRADE system indicated that the gemcitabine group was "MODERATE", the pemetrexed group was "HIGH", and both the pemetrexed + bevacizumab vs. bevacizumab groups and pemetrexed vs. B groups were "LOW".

Conclusions

Gemcitabine or pemetrexed compared with BSC/observation/placebo significantly improved PFS or OS. Whether pemetrexed + bevacizumab compared with bevacizumab alone significantly improves PFS requires further investigation.     

Efficacy and Safety of Endovascular Treatment versus Intravenous Thrombolysis for Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background and Purpose

Although endovascular therapy (ET) is increasingly used in patients with moderate to severe acute ischemic stroke, its efficacy and safety remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis aiming to compare the benefits and safety of endovascular treatment and intravenous thrombolysis in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Science direct and Springer unitil July, 2013. The primary outcomes included good outcome (mRS ≤ 2) and excellent outcome (mRS ≤ 1) at 90 days or at trial end point. Secondary outcomes were occurrence of symptomatic hemorrhage and all-cause mortality.

Results

Using a prespecified search strategy, 5 RCTs with 1106 patients comparing ET and intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) were included in the meta-analysis. ET and IVT were associated with similar good (43.06% vs 41.78%; OR=1.14; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.69; P=0.52;) and excellent (30.43% vs 30.42%; OR=1.05; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.38; P=0.72;) outcome. For additional end points, ET was not associated with increased occurrence of symptomatic hemorrhage (6.25% vs. 6.22%; OR=1.03; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.69; P=0.91;), or all-cause mortality (18.45% vs. 17.35%; OR=1.00; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.39; P=0.99;).

Conclusions

Formal meta-analysis indicates that there are similar safety outcomes and functional independence with endovascular therapy and intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke.     

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Ezetimibe on Major Cardiovascular Endpoints: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

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.     

Clinical Efficacy of Including Capecitabine in Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Capecitabine has proven effective as a chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. Though several Phase II/III studies of capecitabine as neoadjuvant chemotherapy have been conducted, the results still remain inconsistent. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to obtain more precise understanding of the role of capecitabine in neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer patients.

Methods

The electronic database PubMed and online abstracts from ASCO and SABCS were searched to identify randomized clinical trials comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without capecitabine in early/operable breast cancer patients without distant metastasis. Risk ratios were used to estimate the association between capecitabine in neoadjuvant chemotherapy and various efficacy outcomes. Fixed- or random-effect models were adopted to pool data in RevMan 5.1.

Results

Five studies were included in the meta-analysis. Neoadjuvant use of capecitabine with anthracycline and/or taxane based therapy was not associated with significant improvement in clinical outcomes including: pathologic complete response in breast (pCR; RR = 1.10, 95% CI 0.87–1.40, p = 0.43), pCR in breast tumor and nodes (tnpCR RR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.83–1.18, p = 0.90), overall response rate (ORR; RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.94–1.07, p = 0.93), or breast-conserving surgery (BCS; RR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.93–1.04, p = 0.49).

Conclusions

Neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer involving capecitabine did not significantly improve pCR, tnpCR, BCS or ORR. Thus adding capecitabine to neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimes is unlikely to improve outcomes in breast cancer patients without distant metastasis. Further research is required to establish the condition that capecitabine may be useful in breast cancer neoadjuvant chemotherapy.     

The Efficacy and Safety of the Probiotic Bacterium Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 for Infantile Colic: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 for treating infantile colic.

Methods

A systematic literature retrieval was carried out to obtain randomized controlled trials of L. reuteri DSM 17938 for infantile colic. Trials were performed before May 2015 and retrieved from the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, CNKI, WanFang, VIP, and CBM databases. Data extraction and quality evaluation of the trials were performed independently by two investigators. A meta-analysis was performed using STATA version 12.0.

Results

Six randomized controlled trials of 423 infants with colic were included. Of these subjects, 213 were in the L. reuteri group, and 210 were in the placebo group. Lactobacillus reuteri increased colic treatment effectiveness at two weeks (RR = 2.84; 95% CI: 1.24–6.50; p = 0.014) and three weeks (relative risk [RR] = 2.33; 95% CI: 1.38–3.93; P = 0.002) but not at four weeks (RR = 1.41; 95% CI: 0.52–3.82; P = 0.498). Lactobacillus reuteri decreased crying time (min/d) at two weeks (weighted mean difference [WMD] = –42.89; 95% CI: –60.50 to –25.29; P = 0.000) and three weeks (WMD = –45.83; 95% CI: –59.45 to –32.21; P = 0.000). In addition, L. reuteri did not influence infants’ weight, length or head circumference and was not associated with serious adverse events.

Conclusions

Lactobacillus reuteri possibly increased the effectiveness of treatment for infantile colic and decreased crying time at two to three weeks without causing adverse events. However, these protective roles are usurped by gradual physiological improvements. The study is limited by the heterogeneity of the trials and should be considered with caution. Higher quality, multicenter randomized controlled trials with larger samples are needed.     

Acute Endovascular Reperfusion Therapy in Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke have had inconsistent results. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of endovascular therapy in published RCTs.

Methods

We performed a systematic review of RCTs of endovascular therapy with thrombolytic or mechanical reperfusion compared with interventions without endovascular therapy. Primary outcome was the frequency of good functional outcome (modified Rankin scale (mRS) of 0-2 at 90 days) and secondary outcomes were mortality at 90 days and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH). Random-effects meta-analysis was performed and the Cochrane risk of bias assessment was used to evaluate quality of evidence.

Results

Ten studies involving 1,612 subjects were included. Endovascular therapy was not significantly associated with good functional outcome (Relative Risk [RR] =1.17; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.42; p=0.10 and Absolute Risk Difference [ARD] =7%; 95%CI -0.1% to 14%; p=0.05); heterogeneity was moderate among studies (I²=30%). Mortality was unchanged with endovascular therapy (RR=0.92; 95 % CI, 0.75 to 1.13; p=0.45) and there was no difference in sICH (RR=1.20; 95 % CI, 0.79 to 1.82; p=0.39). The quality of evidence was low for all outcomes and the recommendation is weak for the use of endovascular therapy as per GRADE methodology.

Conclusions

Intra-arterial therapy did not show significant increase in good outcomes and no changes in either mortality or sICH in patients with acute ischemic stroke. We need further RCTs with better design and quality to evaluate the true efficacy of endovascular therapy.     

Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Lispro in Obese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Retrospective Meta-Analysis of 7 Randomized Controlled Trials

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of insulin lispro in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) who had a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m² (obese) compared with patients with BMIs < 30 kg/m² (nonobese).MethodsA retrospective analysis of predefined endpoints from 7 randomized clinical trials of T2DM patients treated with insulin lispro was performed. The primary efficacy measure was to assess the noninferiority of insulin lispro in obese patients versus nonobese patients as measured by the change in hemoglobin A1C (HbA_1c) from baseline to Month 3 (n = 1,518), using a noninferiority margin of 0.4%. The secondary measures included overall hypoglycemia incidence and event rates and relative change in body weight.ResultsMean changes in HbA_1c from baseline (9.06% for obese and 8.92% for nonobese) to Month 3 were similar for obese patients (–1.03%) and nonobese (–1.02%), with a least squares (LS) mean difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) of –0.05% (–0.17%, 0.07%; P = .384). The overall incidence of hypoglycemia (53% vs. 63%; P < .001) and rate of hypoglycemia (0.93 vs. 1.76 events per 30 days; P < .001) was significantly lower in obese patients compared with nonobese patients. The 2 BMI cohorts did not demonstrate a significant difference in mean percent changes in body weights (LS mean difference = 0.4% [–0.2%, 0.9%]; P = .202).ConclusionObese patients with T2DM treated with insulin lispro were able to achieve the same level of glycemic control as their nonobese counterparts, with some evidence supporting a reduced risk of hypoglycemia. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20:389-398)     

Aliskiren and Amlodipine in the Management of Essential Hypertension: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Aliskiren is a novel renin-angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitor, the combination therapy of aliskiren and amlodipine for blood pressure control have been reported recently. The primary objective of this analysis is to review recently reported randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare antihypertensive effects and adverse events between mono (amlodipine or aliskiren alone) and combination therapy of both medicines.

Methods

Databases for the search included Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Revman v5.0 statistical program was used to analyze the data. Weighted mean differences (WMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were used for the calculation of continuous data, and relative risk (RR) with a 95% CI was used for dichotomous data.

Results

We analyzed the data from 7 RCTs for a total of 6074 participants in this meta-analysis. We found that the aliskiren/amlodipine combination therapy had a stronger effect in lowering blood pressure as compared with the monotherapy using aliskiren (SBP: WMD = −10.42, 95% CI −13.03∼−7.82, P<0.00001; DBP: WMD = −6.60, 95% CI −7.22∼−5.97, P<0.00001) or amlodipine (SBP: WMD = −4.85, 95% CI −6.88∼−2.81, P<0.00001; DBP: WMD = −2.91, 95% CI −3.85∼−1.97, P<0.00001). No differences were found in terms of adverse events between combination therapy and monotherapy, except for the rates of peripheral edema and hypokalaemia which were significantly lower in the combination therapy than in the amlodipine monotherapy (RR = 0.78, 0.66∼0.92, P = 0.004; RR = 0.51, 0.27∼0.97, P = 0.04). Similar antihypertensive effects were found in both obese (body mass index > = 30 kg/m²) hypertensive and non-obese (body mass index <30 kg/m²) hypertensive patients. Moreover, there was no difference with the blood pressure lowering or adverse effects with regards to the combination therapy in both subgroups.

Conclusion

We found that aliskiren/amlodipine combination therapy provided a more effective blood pressure reduction than monotherapy with either drug without increase in the occurrence of adverse events.     

Efficacy of Corneal Collagen Cross-Linking for Treatment of Keratoconus: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of corneal collagen cross-linking (CXL) for the treatment of keratoconus.MethodsWe performed a literature search for randomized controlled trials that assessed the effect of CXL in slowing progression of keratoconus. The primary outcome measures included changes of topographic parameters, visual acuity, and refraction. Efficacy estimates were evaluated by weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for absolute changes of the interested outcomes.ResultsSignificant decrease in mean keratometry value, maximum keratometry value and minimum keratometry value were demonstrated in the CXL group compared with the control group (WMD = -1.65; 95% CI: -2.51 to -0.80; P < 0.00001; WMD = -2.05; 95% CI: -3.10 to -1.00; P < 0.00001; WMD = -1.94; 95% CI: -2.63 to -1.26; P < 0.00001; respectively). Best spectacle-corrected visual acuity improved significantly in CXL group (WMD = -0.10; 95% CI: -0.15 to -0.05; P < 0.00001), whereas uncorrected visual acuity did not differ statistically. Manifest cylinder error decreased significantly in patients undergoing CXL procedure compared with control patients in sensitivity analysis (WMD = -0.388; 95% CI: -0.757 to -0. 019; P = 0.04). The changes in central corneal thickness and intraocular pressure were not statistically significant.ConclusionCXL may be an effective option in stabilizing keratoconus. Further long-term follow-up studies will be necessary to assess the persistence of CXL.     

Acupuncture Therapy for Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

ObjectiveAcupuncture has commonly been used in China, either alone or in combination with Western medicine, to treat sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSHL). The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the efficacy and safety of acupuncture therapy for patients with SSHL.MethodsWe searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI), Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals (VIP), and Chinese Biomedical literature service system (SinoMed) to collect randomized controlled trials of acupuncture for SSHL published before July 2014. A meta-analysis was conducted according to the Cochrane systematic review method using RevMan 5.2 software. The evidence level for each outcome was assessed using the GRADE methodology.ResultsTwelve trials involving 863 patients were included. A meta-analysis showed that the effect of manual acupuncture combined with Western medicine comprehensive treatment (WMCT) was better than WMCT alone (RR 1.33, 95%CI 1.19–1.49) and the same as the effect of electroacupuncture combined with WMCT (RR 1.33, 95%CI 1.19–1.50). One study showed a better effect of electroacupuncture than of WMCT (RR 1.34, 95%CI 1.24–1.45). For mean changes in hearing over all frequencies, the meta-analysis showed a better effect with the combination of acupuncture and WMCT than with WMCT alone (MD 10.85, 95%CI 6.84–14.86). However, the evidence levels for these interventions were low or very low due to a high risk of bias and small sample sizes in the included studies.ConclusionThere was not sufficient evidence showing that acupuncture therapy alone was beneficial for treating SSHL. However, interventions combining acupuncture with WMCT had more efficacious results in the treatment of SSHL than WMCT alone. Electroacupuncture alone might be a viable alternative treatment besides WMCT for SSHL. However, given that there were fewer eligible RCTs and limitations in the included trials, such as methodological drawbacks and small sample sizes, large-scale RCTs are required to confirm the current findings regarding acupuncture therapy for SSHL.     

Levofloxacin-Based First-Line Therapy versus Standard First-Line Therapy for Helicobacter pylori Eradication: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

First-line levofloxacin-based treatments eradicate Helicobacter pylori with varying success. We examined the efficacy and safety of first-line levofloxacin-based treatment in comparison to standard first-line therapy for H pylori eradication.

Materials and Methods

We searched literature databases from Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Register of Randomized Controlled Trials through March 2013 for randomized controlled trials comparing first-line levofloxacin and standard therapy. We included randomized controlled trials conducted only on naïve H pylori infected patients in adults. A systematic review was conducted. Meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager 5.2. Treatment effect was determined by relative risk with a random or fixed model by the Mantel-Haenszel method.

Results

Seven trials were identified with 888 patients receiving 7 days of first-line levofloxacin and 894 treated with standard therapy (Amoxicillin, Clarithromycin and proton pump inhibitor) for 7 days. The overall crude eradication rate in the Levofloxacin group was 79.05% versus 81.4% in the standard group (risk ratio 0.97; 95% CI; 0.93, 1.02). The overall dropout was 46 (5.2%) in the levofloxacin group and 52 (5.8%) for standard therapy. The dizziness was more common among group who took Levofloxacin based treatment and taste disturbance was more common among group who took standard therapy. Meta-analysis of overall adverse events were similar between the two groups with a relative risk of 1.06 (95% CI 0.72, 1.57).

Conclusion

Helicobacter pylori eradication with 7 days of Levofloxacin-based first line therapy was safe and equal compared to 7 days of standard first-line therapy.     

Efficacy and Safety of Adding Clopidogrel to Aspirin on Stroke Prevention among High Vascular Risk Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objectives

Whether clopidogrel should be added to aspirin for stroke prevention remained controversial for the risk of hemorrhagic complications. This meta-analysis was aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of adding clopidogrel to aspirin on stroke prevention in high vascular risk patients, and to provide evidence for a suitable duration of dual antiplatelet therapy.

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBase, OVID and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (up to June, 2013) for randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of clopidogrel plus aspirin versus aspirin alone in high vascular risk patients. Comparisons of stroke and hemorrhagic complications between treatment groups were expressed by the pooled Relative Risks (RRs) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs).

Results

Fifteen trials with a total of 97692 intention-to-treat participants were included with duration of follow-up ranging from 7 days to 3.6 years. Dual antiplatelet therapy reduced all stroke by 21% (RR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.73–0.85) with no evidence of heterogeneity across the trials (P = 0.27, I ² = 17%).The effects were consistent between short-term subgroup (≤1 month, RR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.67–0.85) and long-term subgroup (≥3 months, RR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.73–0.89). The risk of major bleeding was not significantly increased by dual antiplatelet therapy in short-term subgroup (RR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.91–1.36), while significantly increased in long-term subgroup (RR: 1.52, 95% CI: 1.36–1.69). Long-term dual antiplatelet therapy substantially increased the risk of intracranial bleeding (RR: 1.76, 95% CI: 1.22–2.54).

Conclusions

This meta-analysis demonstrates that short-term combination of clopidogrel and aspirin is effective and safe for stroke prevention in high vascular risk patients. Long-term combination therapy substantially increases the risk of major bleeding and intracranial bleeding.     

Efficacy of Supplementation with B Vitamins for Stroke Prevention: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Supplementation with B vitamins for stroke prevention has been evaluated over the years, but which combination of B vitamins is optimal for stroke prevention is unclear. We performed a network meta-analysis to assess the impact of different combinations of B vitamins on risk of stroke.

Methods

A total of 17 trials (86 393 patients) comparing 7 treatment strategies and placebo were included. A network meta-analysis combined all available direct and indirect treatment comparisons to evaluate the efficacy of B vitamin supplementation for all interventions.

Results

B vitamin supplementation was associated with reduced risk of stroke and cerebral hemorrhage. The risk of stroke was lower with folic acid plus vitamin B6 as compared with folic acid plus vitamin B12 and was lower with folic acid plus vitamin B6 plus vitamin B12 as compared with placebo or folic acid plus vitamin B12. The treatments ranked in order of efficacy for stroke, from higher to lower, were folic acid plus vitamin B6 > folic acid > folic acid plus vitamin B6 plus vitamin B12 > vitamin B6 plus vitamin B12 > niacin > vitamin B6 > placebo > folic acid plus vitamin B12.

Conclusions

B vitamin supplementation was associated with reduced risk of stroke; different B vitamins and their combined treatments had different efficacy on stroke prevention. Folic acid plus vitamin B6 might be the optimal therapy for stroke prevention. Folic acid and vitamin B6 were both valuable for stroke prevention. The efficacy of vitamin B12 remains to be studied.     

Efficacy of Eye-Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing for Patients with Posttraumatic-Stress Disorder: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

We performed the first meta-analysis of clinical studies by investigating the effects of eye-movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy on the symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, and subjective distress in PTSD patients treated during the past 2 decades.

Methods

We performed a quantitative meta-analysis on the findings of 26 randomized controlled trials of EMDR therapy for PTSD published between 1991 and 2013, which were identified through the ISI Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature electronic databases, among which 22, 20, 16, and 11 of the studies assessed the effects of EMDR on the symptoms of PTSD, depression, anxiety, and subjective distress, respectively, as the primary clinical outcome.

Results

The meta-analysis revealed that the EMDR treatments significantly reduced the symptoms of PTSD (g = −0.662; 95% confidence interval (CI): −0.887 to −0.436), depression (g = −0.643; 95% CI: −0.864 to −0.422), anxiety (g = −0.640; 95% CI: −0.890 to −0.390), and subjective distress (g = −0.956; 95% CI: −1.388 to −0.525) in PTSD patients.

Conclusion

This study confirmed that EMDR therapy significantly reduces the symptoms of PTSD, depression, anxiety, and subjective distress in PTSD patients. The subgroup analysis indicated that a treatment duration of more than 60 min per session was a major contributing factor in the amelioration of anxiety and depression, and that a therapist with experience in conducting PTSD group therapy was a major contributing factor in the reduction of PTSD symptoms.     

Dezocine for Preventing Postoperative Pain: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Dezocine is considered to be an alternative medication for managing postoperative pain. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of this drug in this regard.

Methods

Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL) were searched to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compare dezocine with placebo or dezocine with morphine on postoperative pain. The data were extracted and pooled using Mantel-Haenszel random effects model. Heterogeneity was tested using the I ² statistic with values >50% and Chi² test with P ≤ 0.05 indicating obvious heterogeneity between the studies.

Results

Seven trials evaluating 665 patients were included. The number of patients with at least 50% pain relief was increased (N = 234; RR 3.04, 95% CI 2.27 to 4.08) and physician (N = 465; RR 2.84, 95% CI 1.66 to 4.84) and patient satisfaction (N = 390; RR 2.81, 95% CI 1.85 to 4.26) were improved following the administration of dezocine compared with the placebo. The effects of dezocine were similar to those of morphine in terms of the number of patients reporting at least 50% pain relief within 2–6 h after surgery (N = 235; RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.46) and physician (N = 234; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.49) and patient (N = 158; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.92) satisfaction. While, the number of patients with at least 50% pain relief within 0–1 h after surgery increased following dezocine compared with morphine treatment (N = 79; RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.77). There was no difference in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) following dezocine treatment compared with the placebo (N = 391; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.68) or morphine treatment (N = 235; RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.93).

Conclusion

Dezocine is a promising analgesic for preventing postoperative pain, but further studies are required to evaluate its safety.