Network meta-analysis for comparing treatment effects of multiple interventions: an introduction

Efficacy of left ventricular unloading strategies during venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with cardiogenic shock: a protocol for a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) has been widely used for patients with refractory cardiogenic shock. A common side effect of this technic is the resultant increase in left ventricular (LV) afterload which could potentially aggravate myocardial ischaemia, delay ventricular recovery and increase the risk of pulmonary congestion. Several LV unloading strategies have been proposed and implemented to mitigate these complications. However, it is still indistinct that which one is the best choice for clinical application. This Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to compare the efficacy of different LV unloading strategies during VA-ECMO.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform will be explored from their inception to 31 December 2020. Random controlled trials and cohort studies that compared different LV unloading strategies during VA-ECMO will be included in this study. The primary outcome will be in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes will include neurological complications, haemolysis, bleeding, limb ischaemia, renal failure, gastrointestinal complications, sepsis, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of intensive care unit and hospital stays. Pairwise and NMA will respectively be conducted using Stata (V.16, StataCorp) and Aggregate Data Drug Information System (V.1.16.5), and the cumulative probability will be used to rank the included LV unloading strategies. The risk of bias will be conducted using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool or Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale according to their study design. Subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and publication bias assessment will be performed. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation will be conducted to explore the quality of evidence.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Either ethics approval or patient consent is not necessary, because this study will be based on literature. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020165093.

What Is the Best Evidence to Guide Management of Acute Achilles Tendon Ruptures? A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Uncertainty exists regarding the best treatment for acute Achilles tendon ruptures. Simultaneous comparison of the multiple treatment options using traditional study designs is problematic; multiarm clinical trials often are logistically constrained to small sample sizes, and traditional meta-analyses are limited to comparisons of only two treatments that have been compared in head-to-head trials. Network meta-analyses allow for simultaneous comparison of all existing treatments utilizing both direct (head-to-head comparison) and indirect (not previously compared head-to-head) evidence.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We performed a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to answer the following questions: Considering open repair, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) repair, functional rehabilitation, or primary immobilization for acute Achilles tendon ruptures, (1) which intervention is associated with the lowest risk of rerupture? (2) Which intervention is associated with the lowest risk of complications resulting in surgery?

METHODS

This study was conducted with methods guided by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and is reported in adherence with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension statement for incorporating network meta-analysis. Five databases and grey literature sources (such as major orthopaedic meeting presentation lists) were searched from inception to September 30, 2019. Included studies were RCTs comparing treatment of acute Achilles tendon ruptures using two or more of the following interventions: primary immobilization, functional rehabilitation, open surgical repair, or MIS repair. We excluded studies enrolling patients with chronic ruptures, reruptures, and preexisting Achilles tendinopathy as well as studies with more than 20% loss to follow-up or less than 6 months of follow-up. Nineteen RCTs (1316 patients) were included in the final analysis. The mean number of patients per study treatment arm was 35 ± 16, mean age was 41 ± 5 years, mean sex composition was 80% ± 10% males, and mean follow-up was 22 ± 12 months. The four treatment groups were compared for the main outcomes of rerupture and complications resulting in operation. The analysis was conducted using random-effects Bayesian network meta-analysis with vague priors. Evidence quality was evaluated using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. We found risk of selection, attrition, and reporting bias to be low across treatments, and we found the risk of performance and detection bias to be high. Overall risk of bias between treatments appeared similar.

RESULTS

We found that treatment with primary immobilization had a greater risk of rerupture than open surgery (odds ratio 4.06 [95% credible interval {CrI} 1.47 to 11.88]; p < 0.05). There were no other differences between treatments for risk of rerupture. Minimally invasive surgery was ranked first for fewest complications resulting in surgery and was associated with a lower risk of complications resulting in surgery than functional rehabilitation (OR 0.16 [95% CrI 0.02 to 0.90]; p < 0.05), open surgery (OR 0.22 [95% CrI 0.04 to 0.93]; p < 0.05), and primary immobilization (OR < 0.01 [95% CrI < 0.01 to 0.01]; p < 0.05). Risk of complications resulting in surgery was no different between primary immobilization and open surgery (OR 1.46 [95% CrI 0.35 to 5.36]). Data for patient-reported outcome scores and return to activity were inappropriate for pooling secondary to considerable clinical heterogeneity and imprecision associated with small sample sizes.

CONCLUSION

Faced with acute Achilles tendon rupture, patients should be counseled that, based on the best-available evidence, the risk of rerupture likely is no different across contemporary treatments. Considering the possibly lower risk of complications resulting in surgery associated with MIS repair, patients and surgeons must balance any benefit with the potential risks of MIS techniques. As treatments continue to evolve, consistent reporting of validated patient-reported outcome measures is critically important to facilitate analysis with existing RCT evidence. Infrequent but serious complications such as rerupture and deep infection should be further explored to determine whether meaningful differences exist in specific patient populations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, therapeutic study.

Comparative effectiveness of guselkumab in psoriatic arthritis: results from systematic literature review and network meta-analysis

Objective

The efficacy of the novel interleukin (IL)-23p19 inhibitor guselkumab for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) has recently been demonstrated in two phase 3 trials (DISCOVER-1 & -2) but has not been evaluated vs other targeted therapies for PsA. The objective was to compare guselkumab to targeted therapies for PsA for safety and joint and skin efficacy through network meta-analysis (NMA).

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted in January 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials. Bayesian NMAs were performed to compare treatments on American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response, mean change from baseline in van der Heijde-Sharp (vdH-S) score, Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) 75/90/100 response, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs).

Results

Twenty-six phase 3 studies evaluating 13 targeted therapies for PsA were included. For ACR 20 response, guselkumab 100 mg every 8 weeks (Q8W) was comparable to IL-17A inhibitors and subcutaneous tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. Similar findings were observed for ACR 50 and 70. For vdH-S score, guselkumab Q8W was comparable to other agents except intravenous TNF therapies. Results for PASI 75 and PASI 90 response suggested guselkumab Q8W was better than most other agents. For PASI 100, guselkumab Q8W was comparable to other active agents. For AEs and SAEs, guselkumab Q8W ranked highly but comparative conclusions were uncertain. Similar results were observed for all outcomes for guselkumab 100 mg every four weeks.

Conclusions

In this NMA, guselkumab demonstrated favorable arthritis efficacy comparable to IL-17A and subcutaneous TNF inhibitors while offering better PASI response relative to many other treatments.

Comparing Interventions for Management of Hot Flashes in Patients With Breast and Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analyses

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

Hot flashes are common and bothersome in patients with breast and prostate cancer and can adversely affect patients' quality of life.

LITERATURE SEARCH

Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of one or more interventions for hot flashes in patients with a history of breast or prostate cancer.

DATA EVALUATION

Outcomes of interest included changes in hot flash severity, hot flash frequency, quality of life, and harms. Pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses were performed where feasible, with narrative synthesis used where required.

SYNTHESIS

40 RCTs were included. Findings from network meta-analysis for hot flash frequency suggested that several therapies may offer benefits compared to no treatment, but little data suggested differences between active therapies. Findings from network meta-analysis for hot flash score were similar.

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH

Although many interventions may offer improvements for hot flashes versus no treatment, minimal data suggest important differences between therapies.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS CAN BE FOUND BY VISITING&NBSP;HTTPS

//bit.ly/2WGzi30.

Comparative efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib in active rheumatoid arthritis refractory to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs

OBJECTIVE

The relative efficacy and tolerability of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib were assessed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate responses to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs).

METHODS

We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine direct and indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib in RA patients with inadequate responses to bDMARDs.

RESULTS

Four RCTs comprising 1399 patients met the inclusion criteria. Tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib achieved significant American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) responses versus placebo. The ranking probability based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) indicated that upadacitinib 15 mg had the highest probability of being the best treatment for achieving the ACR20 response rate, followed by filgotinib 200 mg, baricitinib 4 mg, filgotinib 100 mg, tofacitinib 5 mg, and placebo. The ranking in SUCRA based on the ACR50 response rate indicated that baricitinib 4 mg had the highest probability of achieving the ACR50 response rate, followed by filgotinib 200 mg, tofacitinib 5 mg, upadacitinib 15 mg, filgotinib 100 mg, and placebo. Tofacitinib 5 mg showed a significantly higher ACR70 response rate than filgotinib 100 mg and upadacitinib 15 mg. Tofacitinib 5 mg, filgotinib 200 mg, and placebo showed a significantly lower serious adverse event rate than upadacitinib 15 mg.

CONCLUSION

Tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib were effective treatment options for RA patients with an inadequate response to bDMARDs but with different efficacy and safety profiles.

Use of corticoids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatories in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: Systematic review and network meta-analysis

Evidence on the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and corticoids for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is inconclusive and is not up to date. This systematic review assessed the effectiveness and safety of these anti-inflammatories (AI) in the treatment of RA. COCHRANE (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and Virtual Health Library were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) with adults which used AI (dose represented in mg/day) compared with placebo or active controls and was carried out up to December of 2019. Reviewers, in pairs and independently, selected studies, performed the data extraction and assessed the risk of bias. The quality of the evidence was assessed by GRADE. Network meta-analyses were performed using the Stata v.14.2. Twenty-six articles were selected (NSAIDs = 21 and corticoids = 5). Naproxen 1,000 improved physical function, reduced pain and the number of painful joints compared to placebo. Etoricoxib 90 reduced the number of painful joints compared to placebo. Naproxen 750 reduced the number of swollen joints, except for etoricoxib 90. Naproxen 1,000, etoricoxib 90 and diclofenac 150 were better than placebo regarding patient assessment. Assessment physician showed that NSAIDs were better than placebo. Meta-analyses were not performed for prednisolone and prednisone. Naproxen 1,000 was the most effective drug and celecoxib 200 showed fewer adverse events. However, the low quality of the evidence observed for the outcomes with NSAIDs, the absence of meta-analyses to assess the outcomes with corticoids, as well as the risk of bias observed, indicate that future RCT can confirm such findings.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of non-tumour necrosis factor biologics and Janus kinase inhibitors in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis showing insufficient response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors: A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Both biologic and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor therapies have demonstrated substantial effectiveness in placebo-controlled studies in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) showing inadequate responses to tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. The purpose of this study was to determine the relative effectiveness and safety of non-TNF biologics and JAK inhibitors in patients with RA showing insufficient response to TNF inhibitors.

METHODS

A Bayesian network meta-analysis incorporating direct and indirect data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was used to investigate the effectiveness and safety of non-TNF biologics (abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, salirumab and sirukumab) and JAK inhibitors (tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib and filgotinib) in patients with RA showing insufficient response to TNF inhibitors.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs, evaluating 3577 patients for 12 weeks fulfilled the inclusion requirements. JAK inhibitors and non-TNF biologics achieved a significant American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response relative to the placebo. The ranking probability based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) showed that JAK inhibitor treatment was most likely to achieve the highest ACR20 response rate, followed by non-TNF biologics and placebo. The ACR50 rate displayed similar patterns as the ACR20 response rate, but non-TNF biologics have a higher value than JAK inhibitors based on the ACR70 response rate. Adverse events did not reach statistical significance nor did serious adverse events when looking at safety over 12 weeks. The confidence intervals overlap, and there is no clinical significance to these safety data, even compared with placebo.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Both non-TNF biologics and JAK inhibitors have similar effects in patients with active RA that are refractory to anti-TNF treatment, and there were no differences with regard to safety among the treatments.

Anti-PD1 versus anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy in first-line therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Due to the increasing number of trials with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the first-line therapy of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, we performed a systematic review and meta-analyses to investigate the difference between anti PD-1 and PD-L1 antibodies, used alone or in combination with chemotherapy, through adjusted indirect analysis to minimize the potential bias regarding overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs).

METHODS

A systematic review of studies reporting clinical outcomes and toxicity associated with first-line therapy employing anti-PD1 or anti-PD-L1 antibodies alone, or in combination with chemotherapy, to treat metastatic, treatment-naïve NSCLC patients was performed. Primary outcomes were OS, PFS, ORR and grade 3-5 AEs. We used a random-effects model to generate pooled estimates for proportions. Meta-analyses using pooled risk ratios were performed for binary outcomes from comparative studies with the random effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 13 eligible studies met our eligibility criteria, including 7673 patients. In the ICI-chemotherapy combination subgroup, we observed that anti-PD1 therapy was associated with better OS (p = 0.022) and PFS (p = 0.029) compared with anti-PD-L1 therapy. In the monotherapy subgroup, there was no statistical difference between the use of anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 for OS and PFS. With regard to ORR and toxicity, in the ICI-chemotherapy combination subgroup, we observed a trend of better ORR (p = 0.12) with the use of anti-PD1 therapy and less frequent grade 3-5 AEs compared to the use of anti-PD-L1 therapy (p = 0.0302). In the monotherapy subgroup, there was no statistical difference between the use of anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 regarding ORR and toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that PD-1 drug plus chemotherapy is superior to anti-PD-L1 plus chemotherapy for NSCLC; nevertheless, as monotherapy, both strategies appear to be similar.

Optimising weight-loss interventions in cancer patients-A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

Excess weight has been associated with increased morbidity and a worse prognosis in adult patients with early-stage cancer. The optimal lifestyle interventions to optimize anthropometric measures amongst cancer patients and survivors remain inconsistent.

Objective

To conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of exercise and dietary interventions alone or in combination on anthropometric measures of adult cancer patients and survivors.

Methods

A systematic search of Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Trials Registry was performed. Outcomes of interest included changes in weight, body mass index (BMI), and waist circumference. Screening and data collection were performed by two reviewers. Bayesian NMAs were performed.

Results

Overall, 98 RCTs were included; 75 were incorporated in NMAs (n = 12,199). Groups of intervention strategies included: 3 exercise interventions, 8 dietary interventions, 7 combination interventions of diet and exercise and standard care. Median intervention duration was 26 weeks. NMA suggested that diet alone (mean difference [MD] -2.25kg, 95% CrI -3.43 to -0.91kg) and combination strategies (MD -2.52kg, 95% CrI -3.54 to -1.62kg) were associated with more weight loss compared to standard care. All dietary interventions achieved a similar magnitude of weight loss (MD range from -2.03kg to -2.52kg). Both diet alone and combination strategies demonstrated greater BMI reductions versus standard care, and each of diet alone, exercise alone and combination strategies demonstrated greater reductions in waist circumference than standard care.

Conclusion

Diet and exercise alone or in combination are effective lifestyle interventions to improve anthropometric measures in cancer patients and survivors. All reputable diets appear to be similarly effective to achieve weight loss.

Evaluating comparative effectiveness of psychosocial interventions adjunctive to opioid agonist therapy for opioid use disorder: A systematic review with network meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend that individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) receive pharmacological and psychosocial interventions; however, the most appropriate psychosocial intervention is not known. In collaboration with people with lived experience, clinicians, and policy makers, we sought to assess the relative benefits of psychosocial interventions as an adjunct to opioid agonist therapy (OAT) among persons with OUD.

METHODS

A review protocol was registered a priori (CRD42018090761), and a comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials (RCT) was conducted from database inception to June 2020 in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Established methods for study selection and data extraction were used. Primary outcomes were treatment retention and opioid use (measured by urinalysis for opioid use and opioid abstinence outcomes). Odds ratios were estimated using network meta-analyses (NMA) as appropriate based on available evidence, and in remaining cases alternative approaches to synthesis were used.

RESULTS

Seventy-two RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias evaluations commonly identified study limitations and poor reporting with regard to methods used for allocation concealment and selective outcome reporting. Due to inconsistency in reporting of outcome measures, only 48 RCTs (20 unique interventions, 5,404 participants) were included for NMA of treatment retention, where statistically significant differences were found when psychosocial interventions were used as an adjunct to OAT as compared to OAT-only. The addition of rewards-based interventions such as contingency management (alone or with community reinforcement approach) to OAT was superior to OAT-only. Few statistically significant differences between psychosocial interventions were identified among any other pairwise comparisons. Heterogeneity in reporting formats precluded an NMA for opioid use. A structured synthesis was undertaken for the remaining outcomes which included opioid use (n = 18 studies) and opioid abstinence (n = 35 studies), where the majority of studies found no significant difference between OAT plus psychosocial interventions as compared to OAT-only.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review offers a comprehensive synthesis of the available evidence and the limitations of current trials of psychosocial interventions applied as an adjunct to OAT for OUD. Clinicians and health services may wish to consider integrating contingency management in addition to OAT for OUD in their settings to improve treatment retention. Aside from treatment retention, few differences were consistently found between psychosocial interventions adjunctive to OAT and OAT-only. There is a need for high-quality RCTs to establish more definitive conclusions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration CRD42018090761.

Psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions for methamphetamine addiction: protocol for a scoping review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Methamphetamine use and harms are rising rapidly. Management of patients with methamphetamine use disorder (MUD) and problematic methamphetamine use (PMU) is challenging, with no clearly established best approach; both psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions have been described. Furthermore, given the diversity of individuals that use methamphetamines, there is a need to assess evidence for treatments for subgroups including youths; gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men; individuals with mental health comorbidities; and individuals in correction services. Establishing awareness of the messages regarding treatment from recent clinical practice guidelines (CPG) in the field is also of value. The first study objective will be to establish a greater understanding of the methods, populations, and findings of controlled studies for psychosocial and pharmacologic treatments for MUD and PMU. Investigation of this information can help establish the potential for advanced syntheses of the evidence (such as network meta-analysis) to compare therapies for this condition and to identify gaps related to key populations where more primary research is needed. Summarizing the recommendations regarding treatment of MUD/PMU from recent CPGs and systematic reviews will be an important secondary objective.

METHODS

A scoping review will be performed. Using the OVID platform, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and relevant Cochrane databases from EBM Reviews will be searched (from databases' inception onwards). Eligibility criteria will include individuals described as having MUD or PMU, with designs of interest including randomized trials, non-randomized trials, and controlled cohort studies with three or more months of follow-up; systematic reviews and CPGs will also be sought. Two reviewers (with support from automation tools) will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and chart data. Different approaches to handling and summarizing the data will be implemented for each type of study design. Tables and graphics will be used to map evidence sources and identify evidence gaps.

DISCUSSION

This research will enhance awareness of evidence addressing the effects of psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions for MUD/PMU overall and in sub-populations, both in terms of recent CPGs/reviews and primary studies; inspection of the latter will also help establish the feasibility of future syntheses to compare treatments, such as network meta-analysis. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/9wy8p ).

Comparative study of the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib versus methotrexate for disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-naïve patients with rheumatoid arthritis

An assessment of the relative efficacy and tolerability of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib compared to those of methotrexate (MTX) was performed in disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine direct and indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) so as to examine the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib, and MTX in DMARD-naïve RA patients. Four RCTs comprising 2185 patients met the inclusion criteria. The ranking probability based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) indicated that upadacitinib 15 mg had the highest probability of achieving the American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response rate, followed by baricitinib 4 mg, tofacitinib 5 mg, filgotinib 200 mg, and MTX. Tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib treatments achieved significantly higher ACR50 and ACR70 responses compared to MTX. Tofacitinib 5 mg had the highest probability of achieving the ACR50 and ACR70 response rates, followed by upadacitinib 15 mg, baricitinib 4 mg, filgotinib 200 mg, and MTX. The safety analysis based on serious adverse events, adverse events (AEs), and withdrawals due to AEs revealed no statistically significant differences between the respective intervention groups. In conclusion, tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib were effective treatment options for DMARD-naïve RA patients, suggesting a difference in efficacy and safety among the different JAK inhibitors.

SMART and as-needed therapies in mild-to-severe asthma: a network meta-analysis

To date, there are no network meta-analyses comparing the impact of as-needed treatments in asthma, including the single maintenance and reliever therapy (known as "SMART" or "MART"; for simplicity, SMART will be used hereafter) and the use of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) combination exclusively on an as-needed basis. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis concerning the efficacy and safety of SMART and as-needed therapies in asthma. Data from 32 096 asthmatic patients were extracted from 21 studies, lasting from 6 to 12 months. In adult mild-to-moderate asthmatic patients low-dose SMART and as-needed low-dose ICS/LABA combination were significantly (relative effect <0.78; p<0.05) more effective than the other as-needed therapies in reducing the risk of exacerbation, and both were ranked as the first treatment option reaching the first quartile of the surface under the cumulative ranking curve analysis (SUCRA). In adult moderate-to-severe asthmatic patients, low-dose to medium-dose SMART and high-dose ICS/LABA+as-needed short-acting β₂-agonist were equally effective in reducing the risk of severe asthma exacerbation (p>0.05), although only low- to medium-dose SMART was ranked as the first treatment option (first SUCRA quartile). Overall, these treatments were well tolerated, and effective also on lung function and disease control. This study supports SMART and as-needed therapies as a suitable therapeutic option for asthma, by providing the most effective positioning of each specific treatment according to the disease severity.

Immunoprophylaxis pharmacotherapy against canine leishmaniosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of vaccines approved in European Union

Leishmania (L.) infantum is a vector-borne parasite currently endemic in several Southern countries of European Union (EU), and dogs represent the main reservoir and hosts. Data from clinical trials are inconsistent with respect to the efficacy of vaccination against L. infantum infection. Therefore, a quantitative synthesis via pairwise meta-analysis was performed in agreement with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) to increase the strength of evidence and assess the real efficacy profile of vaccines against L. infantum currently approved in EU. Data obtained from 1,394 dogs were extracted from 10 studies. The overall analysis indicated that vaccination is significantly effective in protecting against L. infantum infection (RR 0.40, 95%CI 0.23-0.72; I² 70%; P < 0.01 vs. negative controls). The subset analysis performed by excluding the effect modifiers and by considering only the studies that assessed the efficacy of vaccines currently available in EU, indicated that CaniLeish® (RR 0.38, 95%CI 0.20-0.72; I² 0%), but not Letifend® (RR 0.43, 95%CI 0.15-1.22; I² 37%), significantly protected against L. infantum infection when compared to negative controls (P < 0.05). The number needed to treat analysis showed that 3.77 (95%CI 2.59-6.94) and 10.99 (95%CI 8.28-16.34) dogs had to be treated with CaniLeish® and Letifend®, respectively, to prevent one case of infection compared to negative controls. Vaccination is effective in protecting against the risk L. infantum infection, but further studies are needed to assess whether CaniLeish® and Letifend® are characterized by similar efficacy profile.

Pharmacologic and surgical therapies for patients with Meniere's disease: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Meniere's disease (MD) is a chronic condition of the inner ear consisting of symptoms that include vertigo attacks, fluctuating sensorineural hearing loss, tinnitus and aural fullness. Despite availability of various interventions, there is uncertainty surrounding their relative efficacy, thus making it difficult to select the appropriate treatments for MD. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the relative effects of the available pharmacologic and surgical interventions in patients with MD with regard to vertigo and other key patient outcomes based on data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

METHODS

Our published protocol registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019119129) provides details on eligibility criteria and methods. We searched various databases including MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library from inception to December 10th, 2018. Screening at citation and full-text levels and risk of bias assessment were performed by two independent reviewers in duplicate, with discrepancies resolved by consensus or third-party adjudication. Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMA) were performed for hearing change and vertigo control outcomes, along with pairwise meta-analyses for these and additional outcomes.

RESULTS

We identified 2,889 unique citations, that yielded 23 relevant publications describing 18 unique RCTs (n = 1,231 patients). Overall, risk-of bias appraisal suggested the evidence base to be at unclear or high risk of bias. Amongst pharmacologics, we constructed treatment networks of five intervention groups that included placebo, intratympanic (IT) gentamicin, oral high-dose betahistine, IT steroid and IT steroid plus high-dose betahistine for NMAs of hearing change (improvement or deterioration) and complete vertigo control. IT steroid plus high-dose betahistine was associated with the largest difference in hearing improvement compared to placebo, followed by high-dose betahistine and IT steroid (though 95% credible intervals failed to rule out the possibility of no difference), while IT gentamicin was worse than IT steroid. The NMA of complete vertigo control suggested IT gentamicin was associated with the highest probability of achieving better complete vertigo control compared to placebo, followed by IT steroid plus high-dose betahistine. Only two studies related to surgical interventions were found, and data suggested no statistically significant difference in hearing changes between endolymphatic duct blockage (EDB) versus endolymphatic sac decompression (ESD), and ESD with or without steroid injection. One trial reported that 96.5% of patients in EDB group compared to 37.5% of the patients in ESD group achieved complete vertigo control 24 months after surgery (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

To achieve both hearing preservation and vertigo control, the best treatment option among the pharmacologic interventions compared may be IT steroid plus high-dose betahistine, considering that IT gentamicin may have good performance to control vertigo but may be detrimental to hearing preservation with high cumulative dosage and short interval between injections. However, IT steroid plus high-dose betahistine has not been compared in head-to-head trials against other interventions except for IT steroid alone in one trial, thus future trials that compare it with other interventions will help establish comparative effectiveness with direct evidence.

Comparative efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib and peficitinib as monotherapy for active rheumatoid arthritis

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Several clinical trials have attempted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib and peficitinib as monotherapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but their relative efficacy and safety as monotherapy remain unclear due to the lack of data from head-to-head comparison trials. The relative efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib and peficitinib as monotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were assessed.

METHODS

We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine direct and indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and examine the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib and peficitinib as monotherapy relative to placebo in patients with RA.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Five RCTs comprising 1547 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with placebo, tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib and peficitinib as monotherapy showed a significantly higher American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response rate. Peficitinib 150 mg monotherapy showed the highest ACR20 response rate (odds ratio, 17.24.39; 95% credible interval, 6.57-51.80). The ranking probability based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve indicated that peficitinib 150 mg had the highest probability of being the best treatment for achieving the ACR20 response rate, followed by peficitinib 100 mg, filgotinib 200 mg, filgotinib 100 mg, tofacitinib 5 mg, upadacitinib 15 mg, baricitinib 4 mg and placebo. However, the number of patients who experienced serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the JAK inhibitors, except for tofacitinib 5 mg, and placebo.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

All five JAK inhibitors-tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib and peficitinib-were efficacious monotherapy interventions for active RA, and differences were noted in their efficacy and safety in monotherapy.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib and peficitinib in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

The relative efficacy and safety of tofacitinib and peficitinib were assessed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

METHOD

We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine direct and indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib and peficitinib in combination with DMARDs in patients with an inadequate response to DMARDs.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs, including 3836 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Fifteen pairwise comparisons were performed, including six direct comparisons of seven interventions. Tofacitinib 10 mg+methotrexate (MTX) and peficitinib 150 mg+MTX were among the most effective treatments for patients with active RA with an inadequate DMARD response. The efficacy of tofacitinib 10 mg+MTX, peficitinib 150 mg+MTX or tofacitinib 5 mg+MTX tended to be higher than that of adalimumab+MTX. The ranking probability based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve indicated that tofacitinib 10 mg+MTX had the greatest probability of being the best treatment to achieve the American College of Rheumatology 20 response rate, followed by peficitinib 150 mg+MTX, tofacitinib 5 mg+MTX, adalimumab+MTX, peficitinib 100 mg+MTX, and placebo+MTX. No significant differences were observed in the incidence of serious adverse events after treatment with tofacitinib+MTX, peficitinib+MTX, adalimumab+MTX, or placebo+MTX.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with RA with an inadequate response to DMARDs, tofacitinib 10 mg+MTX and peficitinib 150 mg+MTX were the most efficacious interventions and were not associated with a significant risk of serious adverse events.

Which is the most suitable local anaesthetic when inferior nerve blocks are used for impacted mandibular third molar extraction? A network meta-analysis

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of the different local anaesthetic agents for the extraction of impacted lower third molars. A network meta-analysis was performed of all published reports of randomized controlled clinical trials assessing efficacy (anaesthetic success and absence of need for supplementary anaesthesia during the surgical procedure) and/or safety (number of adverse events) of anaesthetic agents. Three electronic databases were searched, from their earliest records up to April 2019. Additionally, the grey literature was searched to identify further potential candidates for inclusion. Anaesthesia had to be delivered by an inferior alveolar nerve block, complemented with infiltration anaesthesia of the buccal nerve. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. This study included a total of 21 trials (2021 molars) assessing the efficacy and 19 trials (1977 molars) assessing the safety of 11 anaesthetic solutions. Seven of the studies included were considered to have a high risk of bias. The most effective local anaesthetic for the extraction of impacted mandibular third molars appeared to be 4% articaine, with significant differences when compared with 2% lidocaine, 0.5% bupivacaine, and 1% ropivacaine. Lidocaine is the safest local anaesthetic, although all investigated solutions can be used safely.

Intraventricular fibrinolytic for the treatment of intraventricular hemorrhage: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To explore which intraventricular fibrinolytic agent - urokinase (UK) or recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) - combined with extraventricular drainage (EVD) is most suitable for patients with spontaneous intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, OVID, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant articles and assessed their quality and extracted statistical analyses using Stata 13.0 and Revman 5.3 software.

RESULTS

Compared with EVD alone, EVD combined with an agent causing intraventricular fibrinolysis (IVF) improved the survival and prognosis of patients with IVH. Regarding the patients' survival rates and prognoses, the treatments, from best to worst results were EVD + UK, EVD + rt-PA, EVD alone. The proportion of patients with serious disability also increased with these treatments, however, with the highest to lowest proportions being EVD + rt-PA, EVD + UK, EVD alone. In addition, EVD + IVF was associated with a higher risk of intracranial rebleeding (from lowest to highest incidence: EVD alone, EVD + rt-PA, EVD + UK). Finally, EVD + UK is associated with an increased risk of potential intracranial infection (from lowest to highest incidence: EVD + rt-PA, EVD alone, EVD + UK).

CONCLUSIONS

EVD + UK may be the best approach to improving patients' survival rate and prognosis. However, it also presents the highest risk of intracranial infection and rebleeding. EVD + IVF increased the proportion of patients with serious disability.

A scoping review of network meta-analyses assessing the efficacy and safety of complementary and alternative medicine interventions

BACKGROUND

Network meta-analysis (NMA) has rapidly grown in use during the past decade for the comparison of healthcare interventions. While its general use in the comparison of conventional medicines has been studied previously, to our awareness, its use to assess complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) has not been studied. A scoping review of the literature was performed to identify systematic reviews incorporating NMAs involving one or more CAM interventions.

METHODS

An information specialist executed a multi-database search (e.g., MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane), and two reviewers performed study selection and data collection. Information on publication characteristics, diseases studied, interventions compared, reporting transparency, outcomes assessed, and other parameters were extracted from each review.

RESULTS

A total of 89 SR/NMAs were included. The largest number of NMAs was conducted in China (39.3%), followed by the United Kingdom (12.4%) and the United States (9.0%). Reviews were published between 2010 and 2018, with the majority published between 2015 and 2018. More than 90 different CAM therapies appeared at least once, and the median number per NMA was 2 (IQR 1-4); 20.2% of reviews consisted of only CAM therapies. Dietary supplements (51.1%) and vitamins and minerals (42.2%) were the most commonly studied therapies, followed by electrical stimulation (31.1%), herbal medicines (24.4%), and acupuncture and related treatments (22.2%). A diverse set of conditions was identified, the most common being various forms of cancer (11.1%), osteoarthritis of the hip/knee (7.8%), and depression (5.9%). Most reviews adequately addressed a majority of the PRISMA NMA extension items; however, there were limitations in indication of an existing review protocol, exploration of network geometry, and exploration of risk of bias across studies, such as publication bias.

CONCLUSION

The use of NMA to assess the effectiveness of CAM interventions is growing rapidly. Efforts to identify priority topics for future CAM-related NMAs and to enhance methods for CAM comparisons with conventional medicine are needed. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/35658.

Nonhormonal Hot Flash Management for Breast Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Chinese Biomedicine Database (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wan Fang, and VIP up to May 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting nonhormonal hot flash treatments for breast cancer survivors were included. Primary outcome measurements were hot flash frequency and hot flash score of posttreatment. The methodological quality of each study was assessed with Cochrane's risk of bias tool.

RESULTS

16 RCTs involving 2,349 participants were included. The nonhormonal therapies used in the included studies were classified as follows: lifestyle changes, mind-body techniques, dietary/supplements, SSRIs/SNRIs, other medications, and other therapies. Pairwise meta-analysis showed that the general effect of nonhormonal management was statistically more effective than no treatment/placebo/sham in reducing hot flash frequency (SMD = -0.60, 95% CI [-1.13, -0.06]; P=0.03)) and hot flash score (SMD = -0.38, 95% CI [-0.68, -0.08]). For hot flash frequency, results from the NMA showed that there was no statistically significant difference between any two of the nonhormonal treatments. Another NMA result indicated that acupuncture (other therapies) was 16.05 points more effective in reducing hot flash scores than no treatment/waitlist (SMD = -16.05, 95% CI [-30.2, -1.99]). These results were statistically significant. Acupuncture was also ranked the optimal nonhormonal therapy for both hot flash frequency and hot flash score. The safety analysis showed that there were few related adverse events during acupuncture and that drug related adverse reactions could have also occurred in studies using drug interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

This network meta-analysis comparing nonhormonal treatments suggested that acupuncture might be more effective in improving hot flashes for breast cancer survivors. A pronounced placebo response was found during hot flash treatments. The evidence of safety for nonhormonal therapies was also insufficient. Therefore, at present, we cannot make confirmative recommendations of nonhormonal hot flash management for breast cancer survivors. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018082008).

Non-Pharmacological Interventions for Post-Stroke Fatigue: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Post-stroke fatigue (PSF) is one of the most serious sequelae, which often interferes with the rehabilitation process and impairs the functional recovery of patients. Due to insufficient evidence, it is unclear which specific pharmacological interventions should be recommended. Therefore, in this paper, we compare the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions in PSF. A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials were performed using EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane library, ClinicalTrials.gov, CNKI, and CQVIP, from inception to January 2018, in the English and Chinese languages. RCTs involving different non-pharmacological interventions for PSF with an outcome of fatigue measured using the Fatigue Severity Scale were included. Multiple intervention comparisons based on a Bayesian network are used to compare the relative effects of all included interventions. Ten RCTs with eight PSF non-pharmacological interventions were identified, comprising 777 participants. For effectiveness, most interventions did not significantly differ from one another. The cumulative probabilities of the best non-pharmacological intervention for fatigue reduction included Community Health Management (CHM), followed by Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). Network meta-analysis based on data from the selected RCTs indicated that the eight PSF non-pharmacological interventions shared equivalent efficacy, but CHM, TCM, and CBT showed potentially better efficacy. In the future, fatigue needs to be recognized and more accurate assessment methods for PSF are required for diagnosis and to develop more effective clinical interventions.

Comparative efficacy and safety of 15 and 30 mg upadacitinib administered to patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the relative efficacy and safety of once-daily administration of 15 and 30 mg upadacitinib (a JAK1-selective inhibitor) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

We conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine the direct and indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib in patients with active RA.

RESULTS

Five RCTs involving 4381 patients met the inclusion criteria. There were 15 pairwise comparisons, including eight direct comparisons and six interventions. The ACR20 response rate was significantly higher in the upadacitinib 15 and 30 mg + MTX (methotrexate) groups than in the MTX group (OR: 4.98, 95% CrI: 2.66-10.10; OR: 4.73, 95% CrI: 2.25-10.98). Adalimumab 40 mg + MTX, upadacitinib 30 mg, and upadacitinib 15 mg groups showed a significantly higher ACR20 response rate than did the MTX group. Ranking probability based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) indicated that upadacitinib 15 mg + MTX was likely to achieve the best ACR20 response rate (SUCRA = 0.838), followed by upadacitinib 30 mg + MTX, adalimumab 40 mg + MTX, upadacitinib 30 mg, upadacitinib 15 mg, and MTX (SUCRA = 0.784, 0.495, 0.471, 0.404, and 0.008, respectively). The safety based on the number of serious adverse events (SAEs) did not differ significantly among the six interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Upadacitinib 15 and 30 mg administration once daily in combination with MTX was the most efficacious intervention for active RA, with no significant risk for SAEs.

Pharmacologic and surgical therapies for patients with Meniere's disease: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hearing loss is one of the leading causes of disability in Canada and worldwide, with more than one million Canadians enduring a hearing-related disability. Meniere's disease (MD) is a chronic condition of the inner ear, manifesting as a triad of disabling symptoms, including attacks of vertigo, fluctuating sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL), and tinnitus. Impacts on quality of life are severe, particularly with respect to restrictions in social participation and physical activity, fatigue, and reduced capacity to work. Anxiety and other psychological disorders may result from the restrictions imposed on life, the constant uncertainty of vertigo attacks, and fluctuating SNHL, with neuroses and depression affecting 40 to 60% of sufferers of intractable MD. There is a need to establish the benefits of previously studied interventions with greater certainty. The planned systematic review and meta-analyses/network meta-analyses (NMAs) will assess the relative effects of competing pharmacologic and surgical interventions for management of MD in adults.

METHODS

An experienced medical information specialist in consultation with the review team will develop the electronic search strategies. We will search various databases including MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library with no date or language restrictions for published literature, and key clinical trial registries for in-progress and completed trials. Screening of the literature will be performed by two reviewers independently using pre-specified eligibility criteria, and quality of the included studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We will resolve disagreements through consensus or third-party adjudication. When applicable, meta-analyses and NMAs will be pursued to compare interventions in terms of their effects on outcomes, including frequency and severity of vertigo, occurrence and intensity of tinnitus, changes in hearing and speech recognition, quality of life, and harms. Separate analyses exploring the effects of pharmacologic and surgical approaches will be performed.

DISCUSSION

Our planned systematic review will provide informative evaluations of existing treatments for management of Meniere's disease. The findings will inform practitioners as to the relative benefits and harms of the existing competing interventions for MD, offer optimal clinical treatment strategies, identify evidence gaps, and determine promising therapies for evaluation in future trials.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019119129.

A criterion-based approach to systematic and transparent comparative effectiveness: a case study in psoriatic arthritis

Aim: Indirect treatment comparisons are used when no direct comparison is available. Comparison networks should satisfy the transitivity assumption, that is, equal likelihood of treatment assignment for a given patient based on comparability of studies. Materials & methods: Seven criteria were evaluated across 18 randomized controlled trials in psoriatic arthritis: inclusion/exclusion criteria, clinical trial design and follow-up, patient-level baseline characteristics, disease severity, prior therapies, concomitant and extended-trial treatment and placebo response differences. Results: Across studies, placebo was a common comparator, and key efficacy end points were reported. Collectively, several potential sources of insufficient transitivity were identified, most often related to trial design and population differences. Conclusion: Potential challenges in satisfying transitivity occur frequently and should be evaluated thoroughly.

Different surgical interventions for patients with spontaneous supratentorial intracranial hemorrhage: A network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study was performed to explore the efficacy and safety of different surgical interventions in patients with spontaneous supratentorial intracranial hemorrhage (SSICH) and determine which intervention is most suitable for such patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Medline, OVID, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. The quality of the included studies was assessed. Statistical analyses were performed using the software Stata 13.0 and RevMan 5.3.

RESULTS

Endoscopic surgery (ES), minimally invasive surgery combined with urokinase (MIS + UK), minimally invasive surgery combined with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (MIS + rt-PA), and craniotomy were associated with higher survival rates and a lower risk of intracranial rebleeding than standard medical care (SMC) in patients with SSICH, especially in younger patients with few comorbidities. The order from highest to lowest survival rate was ES, MIS + UK, MIS + rt-PA, craniotomy, and SMC. The order from lowest to highest intracranial rebleeding risk was ES, MIS + UK, craniotomy, MIS + rt-PA, and SMC. Additionally, compared with SMC, all four surgical interventions (ES, MIS + rt-PA, MIS + UK, and craniotomy) improved the prognosis and reduced the proportion of patients with serious disability. The order from most to least favorable prognosis was MIS + rt-PA, ES, MIS + UK, craniotomy, and SMC. The order from highest to lowest proportion of patients with serious disability was ES, MIS + rt-PA, MIS + UK, craniotomy, and SMC.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed that the efficacy and safety of different surgical interventions (ES, MIS + UK, MIS + rt-PA, craniotomy) were superior to those of SMC in the patients with SSICH, especially in younger patients with few comorbidities. Among them, ES was the most reasonable and effective intervention. ES was found not only to improve the survival rate and prognosis but also to have the lowest risk of intracranial rebleeding and the lowest proportion of patients with serious disability.

Exercise and adiposity in overweight and obese children and adolescents: a systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomised trials

OBJECTIVES

Determine both the effects and hierarchy of effectiveness for exercise interventions (aerobic, strength training or both) on selected measures of adiposity (body mass index (BMI) in kg/m², fat mass and per cent body fat) in overweight and obese children and adolescents.

DESIGN

Network meta-analysis of randomised exercise intervention trials.

SETTING

Any setting where a randomised trial could be conducted.

PARTICIPANTS

Overweight and obese male and/or female children and adolescents 2-18 years of age.

INTERVENTIONS

Randomised exercise intervention trials>4 weeks, published between 1 January 1973 and 22 August 2018, and which included direct and/or indirect evidence for aerobic, strength training or combined aerobic and strength training.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

Changes in BMI in kg/m², fat mass and per cent body fat.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven studies representing 127 groups (73 exercise, 54 control) and 2792 participants (1667 exercise, 1125 control) met the criteria for inclusion. Length of training ([Formula: see text] ± SD) averaged 14.1±6.2 weeks, frequency, 3.3±1.1 days per week and duration 42.0±21.0 min per session. Significant and clinically important reductions in BMI, fat mass and per cent body fat were observed in aerobic versus control comparisons (BMI, mean, 95% CI -1.0, 1.4 to -0.6; fat mass -2.1, -3.3 to -1.0 kg; per cent fat -1.5, -2.2 to -0.9%) and combined aerobic and strength versus control comparisons (BMI -0.7, -1.4 to -0.1; fat mass -2.5, -4.1 to -1.0 kg; per cent fat, -2.2, -3.2 to -1.2%). A significant reduction in per cent fat was also found for strength vs control comparisons (-1.3,-2.5 to -0.1%). Combined aerobic and strength training was ranked first for improving both fat mass (kg) and per cent body fat while aerobic exercise was ranked first for improving BMI.

CONCLUSIONS

Aerobic and combined aerobic and strength training are associated with improvements in adiposity outcomes in overweight and obese children and adolescents.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017073103.

Incorporating adjustments for variability in control group response rates in network meta-analysis: a case study of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

The importance of adjusting for cross-study heterogeneity in control group response rates when conducting network meta-analyses (NMA) was demonstrated using a case study involving a comparison of biologics for the treatment of moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

Bayesian NMAs were conducted for American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 treatment response based upon a set of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified by a recently completed systematic review of the literature. In addition to the performance of an unadjusted NMA, a model adjusting for cross-study heterogeneity of control group response rates using meta-regression was fit to the data. Model fit was evaluated, and findings from both analyses were compared with regard to clinical interpretations.

RESULTS

ACR 50 response data from a total of 51 RCTs and 16,223 patients were analyzed. Inspection of cross-study variability in control group response rates identified considerable differences between studies. NMA incorporating adjustment for this variability was associated with an average change of 38.1% in the magnitude of the ORs between treatment comparisons, and over 64% of the odds ratio changed by 15% or more. Important changes in the clinical interpretations drawn from treatment comparisons were identified with this improved modeling approach.

CONCLUSIONS

In comparing biologics for moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis, failure to adjust for cross-trial differences in the control arm response rates in NMA can lead to biased estimates of comparative efficacy between treatments.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib and baricitinib in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

The relative efficacy and safety of tofacitinib and baricitinib were assessed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response to disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or biologics.

METHODS

We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine direct and indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib and baricitinib in combination with DMARDs in RA patients with an inadequate DMARD or biologic response.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs including 5883 patients met the inclusion criteria. There were 15 pairwise comparisons including 10 direct comparisons of 6 interventions. Tofacitinib 10 mg + methotrexate (MTX) and baricitinib 4 mg + MTX were among the most effective treatments for active RA with an inadequate DMARD or biologic response, followed by baricitinib 2 mg + MTX, tofacitinib 5 mg + MTX, and adalimumab + MTX. The ranking probability based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) indicated that tofacitinib 10 mg + MTX had the highest probability of being the best treatment to achieve the ACR20 response rate (SUCRA = 0.865), followed by baricitinib 4 mg + MTX (SUCRA = 0.774), baricitinib 2 mg + MTX (SUCRA = 0.552), tofacitinib 5 mg + MTX (SUCRA = 0.512), adalimumab + MTX (SUCRA = 0.297), and placebo + MTX (SUCRA <0.001). No significant differences were observed in the incidence of serious adverse events after treatment with tofacitinib + MTX, baricitinib + MTX, adalimumab + MTX, or placebo + MTX.

CONCLUSIONS

In RA patients with an inadequate response to DMARDs or biologics, tofacitinib 10 mg + MTX and baricitinib 4 mg + MTX were the most efficacious interventions and were not associated with a significant risk of serious adverse events.

Effectiveness and safety of oral Chinese patent medicines as adjuvant treatment for unstable angina pectoris on the national essential drugs list of China: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Achieving efficacious and safe treatments for unstable angina pectoris (UAP) is still a challenging clinical problem. The availability of different oral Chinese patent medicines frequently poses a practical challenge to clinicians, namely, which one to choose as first-line regimen for treatment. This study aims to examine the comparative effectiveness and safety of oral Chinese patent medicines for UAP on the national essential drugs list of China.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) of all randomised controlled trials to evaluate the use of oral Chinese patent medicines as adjuvant for the treatment of UAP. We will explore eight electronic databases from their inception to June 2018 and search for grey literature. Primary outcomes include mortality and the cardiovascular events. Secondary outcomes include: (1) symptom improvement; (2) ECG improvement; (3) frequency of acute angina attack; (4) duration of angina; (5) adverse effects. Two independent authors will screen titles and abstracts, review full texts, extract data, assess the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and assess the quality of evidence and strength of the recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). If adequate data are available, NMA will be performed with Bayesian analysis methods.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The NMA will help us to reduce the uncertainty of interventions and help clinicians to make optimal and more accurate therapeutic decisions for adults with UAP. Therefore, we will publish the findings of this study in a peer-reviewed journal. No ethics approval is necessary for this study based on the nature of its design.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018092822.

Comparative efficacy and safety of baricitinib 2 mg and 4 mg in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis : A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the relative efficacy and safety of once-daily baricitinib 2 mg and 4 mg administration in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

In this network meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in patients with active RA were included. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to combine the direct and indirect evidence from the RCTs.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs involving 3461 patients met the inclusion criteria. There were ten pairwise comparisons, including seven direct comparisons and five interventions. The ACR20 response rate was significantly higher in the baricitinib 4 mg in combination with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) group than in the placebo+DMARD group (odds ratio, OR 3.13; 95% credible interval, CrI 2.32-4.33). Compared with the placebo+DMARD group, the baricitinib 4 mg, baricitinib 2 mg + DMARD, and adalimumab 40 mg + methotrexate (MTX) groups showed a significantly higher ACR20 response rate. The ranking probability based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) indicated that baricitinib 4 mg + DMARD was likely to elicit the best ACR20 response rate (SUCRA = 0.7930), followed by baricitinib 4 mg (SUCRA = 0.7034), baricitinib 2 mg + DMARD (SUCRA = 0.6304), adalimumab 40 mg + MTX (SUCRA = 0.3687), and placebo+DMARD (SUCRA = 0.0045). By contrast, the safety based on the number of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) did not differ significantly among the five interventions.

CONCLUSION

Baricitinib 2 mg and 4 mg administered once daily, in combination with DMARD, were efficacious interventions for active RA that had no significant risk of TEAE development.

Relative efficacy and safety of apremilast, secukinumab, and ustekinumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relative efficacy and safety of apremilast, secukinumab, and ustekinumab at different doses in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

METHOD

A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted, which included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the efficacy and safety of apremilast 20 mg, apremilast 30 mg, secukinumab 75 mg, secukinumab 150 mg, secukinumab 300 mg, ustekinumab 45 mg, and ustekinumab 90 mg compared with placebo.

RESULTS

Of the RCTs 8 comprising 3289 patients met the inclusion criteria. The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response rate was significantly higher in the secukinumab 300 mg group than in the placebo group (odds ratio OR, 7.55; 95% confidence interval CI, 3.18-17.63). Secukinumab 150 mg, secukinumab 75 mg, ustekinumab 90 mg, apremilast 30 mg, apremilast 20 mg, and ustekinumab 45 mg were also more efficacious than placebo. There were no significant differences in the efficacy between the interventions. A dose-response relationship among the same drug groups was observed. The number of serious adverse events was not significantly different among the apremilast, secukinumab, ustekinumab, and placebo groups.

CONCLUSION

All drug treatments were more efficacious than placebo; however, there were no significant differences in the efficacy and safety between the drugs at the different doses.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of existing pharmacologic therapies in patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss

BACKGROUND

Hearing loss is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Patients with hearing loss experience impaired quality of life, as well as emotional and financial consequences that affect both themselves and their families. Idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) is a common but difficult to treat condition that has a sudden onset of ≤ 72 hour associated with various etiologies, with the majority of cases being idiopathic. There exists a wide range of therapeutic options, however, the uncertainty surrounding their comparative efficacy and safety makes selection of treatment difficult. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the relative effects of competing treatments for management of ISSNHL.

METHODS

A protocol for this review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017073756). A detailed search of MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library from inception to February 8th, 2018 was carried out by an experienced information specialist. Grey literature was also searched. Screening full-text records, and risk of bias assessment were carried out independently by two reviewers, and disagreements were resolved through consensus or third party adjudication, while data was collected by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMA) were performed to inform comparisons between interventions for a priori specified outcomes that included pure tone average (PTA) improvement and hearing recovery.

RESULTS

The search identified a total of 1,138 citations, of which 613 remained for review after removal of duplicates. Of these, 23 publications describing 19 unique studies (total sample size of 1,527) met our a priori eligibility criteria, that were assessed to be at unclear or high risk of bias on several domains. We identified data on several interventions for ISSNHL therapy and were able to construct treatment networks consisting of six intervention groups that included placebo; intratympanic (IT) steroid; IT plus systemic steroid; per oral (PO) steroid; intravenous (IV) steroid; and IV plus PO steroid for our NMAs. IT plus systemic steroids demonstrated the largest difference in PTA improvement compared to placebo (25.85 dB, 95% CrI 7.18-40.58), followed by IV plus PO steroids (22.06 dB, 95% CrI 1.24-39.17), IT steroids (18.24 dB, 95% CrI 3.00-29.81). We observed that the difference of PTA improvement between each intervention and placebo diminished over time, attributed to spontaneous recovery. The binary outcomes of hearing recovery demonstrated similar relative ordering of interventions but were less sensitive than PTA improvement to capture the significant differences between interventions and placebo.

CONCLUSION

Unclear to high risk of bias trials rated IT plus systemic steroid treatment as the best among the six interventions compared, and all active treatments were better than placebo in improving PTA. However, it should be noted that certain comparisons were based on indirect evidence only or few studies of small sample size, and analyses were unable to control for steroid type and dosage. Given these limitations, further data originating from methodologically sound and rigorous trials with adequate reporting are needed to confirm our findings.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib and upadacitinib in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

The relative efficacy and safety of tofacitinib and upadacitinib were assessed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response to conventional synthetic (cs) or biologic (b) disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

METHOD

We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine direct and indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib and upadacitinib in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in RA patients with an inadequate cs- or b-DMARD response.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs including 5794 patients met the inclusion criteria. There were 15 pairwise comparisons including 10 direct comparisons of 6 interventions. Upadacitinib 15 mg + MTX and upadacitinib 30 mg + MTX were among the most effective treatments for active RA with an inadequate cs- or b-DMARD response, followed by tofacitinib 10 mg + MTX, tofacitinib 5 mg + MTX, and adalimumab + MTX. Ranking probability based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) indicated that upadacitinib 15 mg + MTX and upadacitinib 30 mg + MTX had the highest probability of being the best treatment in terms of the American College of Rheumatology 20 response rate (SUCRA = 0.820, 0.762), followed by tofacitinib 10 mg + MTX (SUCRA = 0.623), tofacitinib 5 mg + MTX (SUCRA = 0.424), adalimumab + MTX (SUCRA = 0.371), and placebo + MTX (SUCRA = 0.001). No significant differences were observed in the incidence of serious adverse events after treatment with tofacitinib + MTX, upadacitinib + MTX, adalimumab + MTX, or placebo + MTX.

CONCLUSIONS

In RA patients with an inadequate response to cs- or b-DMARDs, upadacitinib 15 mg + MTX and upadacitinib 30 mg + MTX were the most efficacious interventions and were not associated with significant risks of serious adverse events.

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Tofacitinib and Apremilast in Patients with Active Psoriatic Arthritis: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Tofacitinib and apremilast have shown considerable efficacy in placebo-controlled trials of active psoriatic arthritis, but the relative efficacy and safety remain unclear because of a lack of head-to-head comparisons.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the relative efficacy and safety of tofacitinib and apremilast at different doses in patients with active psoriatic arthritis.

METHOD

We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine evidence from randomized controlled trials for examination of the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib 10 mg, tofacitinib 5 mg, apremilast 30 mg, and apremilast 20 mg in psoriatic arthritis.

RESULTS

Eight randomized controlled trials including 3086 patients met the inclusion criteria. There were ten pairwise comparisons including six direct comparisons of five interventions. All the interventions achieved a significant American College of Rheumatology 20 response compared with placebo. Tofacitinib 10 mg and apremilast 30 mg were among the most effective treatments for active psoriatic arthritis, followed by tofacitinib 5 mg, and apremilast 20 mg. The ranking probability based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) indicated that tofacitinib 10 mg had the highest probability of being the best treatment in terms of the American College of Rheumatology 20 response rate (SUCRA = 0.785). This was followed by apremilast 30 mg (SUCRA = 0.670), tofacitinib 5 mg (SUCRA = 0.596), apremilast 20 mg (SUCRA = 0.448), and placebo (SUCRA = 0.001). We observed no significant differences in the incidence of serious adverse events after treatment with tofacitinib 10 mg, apremilast 30 mg, tofacitinib 5 mg, apremilast 20 mg, or placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with active psoriatic arthritis, tofacitinib 10 mg and apremilast 30 mg were the most efficacious interventions and were not associated with a significant risk of serious adverse events.

Comparative evaluation of group-based mindfulness-based stress reduction and cognitive behavioural therapy for the treatment and management of chronic pain: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

QUESTION

This review compares mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) to cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) in its ability to improve physical functioning and reduce pain intensity and distress in patients with chronic pain (CP), when evaluated against control conditions.

STUDY SELECTION AND ANALYSIS

Ovid MEDLINE, EmbaseClassic+Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify randomised controlled trials. The primary outcome measure was physical functioning. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity and depression symptoms. We used random and fixed effects (RE and FE) network meta-analyses (NMA) to compare MBSR, CBT and control interventions on the standardised mean difference scale.

FINDINGS

Twenty-one studies were included: 13 CBT vs control (n=1095), 7 MBSR vs control (n=545) and 1 MBSR vs CBT vs control (n=341). Of the 21 articles, 12 were determined to be of fair or good quality. Findings from RE NMA for change in physical functioning, pain intensity and depression revealed clinically important advantages relative to control for MBSR and CBT, but no evidence of an important difference between MBSR and CBT was found.

CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that MBSR offers another potentially helpful intervention for CP management. Additional research using consistent measures is required to guide decisions about providing CBT or MBSR.

Antiamoebic drugs for treating amoebic colitis

BACKGROUND

Infection with the protozoan Entamoeba histolytica is common in low- and middle-income countries, and up to 100,000 people with severe disease die every year. Adequate therapy for amoebic colitis is necessary to reduce illness, prevent development of complicated disease and extraintestinal spread, and decrease transmission.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate antiamoebic drugs for treating amoebic colitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the available literature up to 22 March 2018. We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, mRCT, and conference proceedings. We contacted individual researchers, organizations, and pharmaceutical companies, and we checked reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials of antiamoebic drugs given alone or in combination, compared with placebo or another antiamoebic drug, for treating adults and children with a diagnosis of amoebic colitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and methodological quality of trials and extracted and analysed the data. We calculated clinical and parasitological failure rates and rates of relapse and adverse events as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using a random-effects model. We determined statistical heterogeneity and explored possible sources of heterogeneity using subgroup analyses. We carried out sensitivity analysis by using trial quality to assess the robustness of reported results.

MAIN RESULTS

In total, 41 trials (4999 participants) met the inclusion criteria of this review. In this update, we added four trials to the 37 trials included in the first published review version. Thirty trials were published over 20 years ago. Only one trial used adequate methods of randomization and allocation concealment, was blinded, and analysed all randomized participants. Only one trial used an E histolytica stool antigen test, and two trials used amoebic culture.Tinidazole may be more effective than metronidazole for reducing clinical failure (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.51; 477 participants, eight trials; low-certainty evidence) and is probably associated with fewer adverse events (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.92; 477 participants, 8 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared with metronidazole, combination therapy may result in fewer parasitological failures (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.86; 720 participants, 3 trials; low-certainty evidence), but we are uncertain which combination is more effective than another. Evidence is insufficient to allow conclusions regarding the efficacy of other antiamoebic drugs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with metronidazole, tinidazole may be more effective in reducing clinical failure and may be associated with fewer adverse events. Combination drug therapy may be more effective for reducing parasitological failure compared with metronidazole alone. However, these results are based mostly on small trials conducted over 20 years ago with a variety of poorly defined outcomes. Tests that detect E histolytica more accurately are needed, particularly in countries where concomitant infection with other bacteria and parasites is common.

Identifying stroke therapeutics from preclinical models: A protocol for a novel application of network meta-analysis

Introduction: Globally, stroke is the second leading cause of death. Despite the burden of illness and death, few acute interventions are available to patients with ischemic stroke. Over 1,000 potential neuroprotective therapeutics have been evaluated in preclinical models. It is important to use robust evidence synthesis methods to appropriately assess which therapies should be translated to the clinical setting for evaluation in human studies. This protocol details planned methods to conduct a systematic review to identify and appraise eligible studies and to use a network meta-analysis to synthesize available evidence to answer the following questions: in preclinical in vivo models of focal ischemic stroke, what are the relative benefits of competing therapies tested in combination with the gold standard treatment alteplase in (i) reducing cerebral infarction size, and (ii) improving neurobehavioural outcomes? Methods: We will search Ovid Medline and Embase for articles on the effects of combination therapies with alteplase. Controlled comparison studies of preclinical in vivo models of experimentally induced focal ischemia testing the efficacy of therapies with alteplase versus alteplase alone will be identified. Outcomes to be extracted include infarct size (primary outcome) and neurobehavioural measures. Risk of bias and construct validity will be assessed using tools appropriate for preclinical studies. Here we describe steps undertaken to perform preclinical network meta-analysis to synthesise all evidence for each outcome and obtain a comprehensive ranking of all treatments. This will be a novel use of this evidence synthesis approach in stroke medicine to assess pre-clinical therapeutics. Combining all evidence to simultaneously compare mutliple therapuetics tested preclinically may provide a rationale for the clinical translation of therapeutics for patients with ischemic stroke.  Dissemination: Review findings will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant scientific meetings to promote knowledge transfer. Registration: PROSPERO number to be submitted following peer review.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of drug therapies for macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents and corticosteroids for the treatment of macular oedema (ME) secondary to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO).

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients from previously reported randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anti-VEGF and corticosteroids for the treatment of ME secondary to CRVO.

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted using PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and clinicaltrials.gov until March 2017. Therapeutic effects were estimated using the proportions of patients gaining/losing ≥15 letters, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT). Treatment safety was estimated using the proportions of adverse events, namely increased intraocular pressure (IOP), cataracts, vitreous haemorrhage (VH) and retinal tear. The software ADDIS (V.1.16.8) was used for analysis. Treatment effect and safety of different drugs could be ranked based on simulation.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs comprising 2060 patients were identified. Regarding patients gaining ≥15 letters, aflibercept and ranibizumab were significantly more effective than sham/placebo at 6 months. Regarding patients losing ≥15 letters at 6 months, ranibizumab showed significant improvement compared with dexamethasone. Aflibercept, bevacizumab or ranibizumab showed greater improvements in BCVA than sham/placebo at 6 months. Intravitreal ranibizumab injection demonstrated greater CRT reduction than both sham and dexamethasone did. Dexamethasone had a higher risk of increased IOP than aflibercept and ranibizumab. Ranibizumab demonstrated a greater risk of cataracts than dexamethasone. Aflibercept and ranibizumab demonstrated low incidence of VH and retinal tear, respectively. Aflibercept had a slight advantage over ranibizumab as assessed by benefit-risk analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-VEGF agents have advantages in the treatment of ME secondary to CRVO. Aflibercept and ranibizumab showed marked BCVA improvement and CRT reduction. Aflibercept may have a slight advantage over ranibizumab. The results of this study can serve as a reference for clinicians to provide patient-tailored treatment.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017064076.

Guselkumab for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis During Induction Phase: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background:

Guselkumab is an interleukin-23 inhibitor indicated for treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.

Objective:

The objective was to determine the relative efficacy and safety of guselkumab compared to other biologics.

Methods:

A systematic review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMAs) were conducted using meta-regression analyses that adjusted for cross-trial differences and risk differences. The primary outcome was Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 response. Other efficacy and safety outcomes were considered. Several meta-regressions were performed to account for variations in patient and study characteristics: baseline risk adjustment (ie, control group response), prior biologic use, duration of psoriasis, weight, age, race, and baseline PASI/dermatology life quality index scores. The best-fitting model using predefined criteria was selected.

Results:

Forty-five RCTs were identified. Patient and study characteristics differed between RCTs as reflected in variations in control group response. Both the baseline risk-adjusted NMA and the risk-difference NMA fit the data best and suggested guselkumab has one of the highest PASI 90 responses. Pairwise comparisons from the baseline risk-adjusted PASI 90 NMA suggested guselkumab has comparable efficacy with ixekizumab (relative risk [RR]: 0.999, 95% credible intervals [CrIs]: 0.89-1.13) and brodalumab (RR: 1.04, 95% CrIs: 0.91-1.17) and superior efficacy versus all other treatments in the network (RR range, 1.20 to 43.22). Guselkumab was superior or comparable to other therapies for other efficacy outcomes and had a more favorable safety profile than most.

Conclusions:

Guselkumab has one of the highest PASI 90 responses among psoriasis treatments; similar findings were observed for other efficacy outcomes. Guselkumab has a favorable benefit–risk balance compared to moderate-to-severe psoriasis therapies.

Protocol for treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures; a systematic review with network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Achilles tendon ruptures are a common injury and are increasing in incidence. Several management strategies exist for both non-operative and operative care, with each strategy offering unique risks and benefits. Traditional pairwise meta-analyses have been performed to compare management strategies; however, all treatment options have never been integrated in a single analysis. Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a generalization of pairwise meta-analysis, which allows for the comparison of multiple interventions based on all available direct and indirect evidence. The objectives of this review are to synthesize the evidence on the management options for acute Achilles tendon rupture and identify which treatment gives the best functional outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review with NMA is planned. An electronic literature search will be performed in conjunction with an experienced information specialist in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We will include randomized controlled trials with a minimum 6-month follow-up. Two independent reviewers will screen citations for eligibility, extract study data, and perform risk of bias assessments. The primary outcome will be disease-specific functional outcome scores (AOFAS, Leppilahti, modified Leppilahti) at 1 year. Secondary outcomes will include complications (re-rupture, sural nerve injury, wound complications, deep infection, secondary surgeries), strength, range of motion, return to work, return to sport, and quality-of-life measures (including the SF-36 questionnaire). Traditional pairwise meta-analyses will be performed for all direct comparisons where evidence is available, and NMAs will subsequently be performed where possible to compare all management strategies.

DISCUSSION

The data generated from this review will provide health-care providers with a clear evidence synthesis of all Achilles tendon rupture management strategies. Additionally, these data will be incorporated into the development of a patient decision aid to assist patients and clinicians in making a preference-based decision when faced with an Achilles tendon rupture.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42018093033 .