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

External electrical and pharmacological cardioversion for atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter or atrial tachycardias: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most frequent sustained arrhythmia. Cardioversion is a rhythm control strategy to restore normal/sinus rhythm, and can be achieved through drugs (pharmacological) or a synchronised electric shock (electrical cardioversion).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and electrical cardioversion for atrial fibrillation (AF), atrial flutter and atrial tachycardias.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) and three trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and ISRCTN) on 14 February 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) at the individual patient level. Patient populations were aged ≥ 18 years with AF of any type and duration, atrial flutter or other sustained related atrial arrhythmias, not occurring as a result of reversible causes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology to collect data and performed a network meta-analysis using the standard frequentist graph-theoretical approach using the netmeta package in R. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence which we presented in our summary of findings with a judgement on certainty. We calculated differences using risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) as well as ranking treatments using a P value. We assessed clinical and statistical heterogeneity and split the networks for the primary outcome and acute procedural success, due to concerns about violating the transitivity assumption.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 112 RCTs (139 records), from which we pooled data from 15,968 patients. The average age ranged from 47 to 72 years and the proportion of male patients ranged from 38% to 92%. Seventy-nine trials were considered to be at high risk of bias for at least one domain, 32 had no high risk of bias domains, but had at least one domain classified as uncertain risk, and one study was considered at low risk for all domains. For paroxysmal AF (35 trials), when compared to placebo, anteroapical (AA)/anteroposterior (AP) biphasic truncated exponential waveform (BTE) cardioversion (RR: 2.42; 95% CI 1.65 to 3.56), quinidine (RR: 2.23; 95% CI 1.49 to 3.34), ibutilide (RR: 2.00; 95% CI 1.28 to 3.12), propafenone (RR: 1.98; 95% CI 1.67 to 2.34), amiodarone (RR: 1.69; 95% CI 1.42 to 2.02), sotalol (RR: 1.58; 95% CI 1.08 to 2.31) and procainamide (RR: 1.49; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.97) likely result in a large increase in maintenance of sinus rhythm until hospital discharge or end of study follow-up (certainty of evidence: moderate). The effect size was larger for AA/AP incremental and was progressively smaller for the subsequent interventions. Despite low certainty of evidence, antazoline may result in a large increase (RR: 28.60; 95% CI 1.77 to 461.30) in this outcome. Similarly, low-certainty evidence suggests a large increase in this outcome for flecainide (RR: 2.17; 95% CI 1.68 to 2.79), vernakalant (RR: 2.13; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.99), and magnesium (RR: 1.73; 95% CI 0.79 to 3.79). For persistent AF (26 trials), one network was created for electrical cardioversion and showed that, when compared to AP BTE incremental energy with patches, AP BTE maximum energy with patches (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.55) likely results in a large increase, and active compression AP BTE incremental energy with patches (RR: 1.14, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.131) likely results in an increase in maintenance of sinus rhythm at hospital discharge or end of study follow-up (certainty of evidence: high). Use of AP BTE incremental with paddles (RR: 1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.09; certainty of evidence: low) may lead to a slight increase, and AP MDS Incremental paddles (RR: 0.95, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.05; certainty of evidence: low) may lead to a slight decrease in efficacy. On the other hand, AP MDS incremental energy using patches (RR: 0.78, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.87), AA RBW incremental energy with patches (RR: 0.76, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.88), AP RBW incremental energy with patches (RR: 0.76, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.86), AA MDS incremental energy with patches (RR: 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.86) and AA MDS incremental energy with paddles (RR: 0.68, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.83) probably result in a decrease in this outcome when compared to AP BTE incremental energy with patches (certainty of evidence: moderate). The network for pharmacological cardioversion showed that bepridil (RR: 2.29, 95% CI 1.26 to 4.17) and quindine (RR: 1.53, (95% CI 1.01 to 2.32) probably result in a large increase in maintenance of sinus rhythm at hospital discharge or end of study follow-up when compared to amiodarone (certainty of evidence: moderate). Dofetilide (RR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.44), sotalol (RR: 0.89, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.18), propafenone (RR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.25) and pilsicainide (RR: 0.39, 95% CI 0.02 to 7.01) may result in a reduction in this outcome when compared to amiodarone, but the certainty of evidence is low. For atrial flutter (14 trials), a network could be created only for antiarrhythmic drugs. Using placebo as the common comparator, ibutilide (RR: 21.45, 95% CI 4.41 to 104.37), propafenone (RR: 7.15, 95% CI 1.27 to 40.10), dofetilide (RR: 6.43, 95% CI 1.38 to 29.91), and sotalol (RR: 6.39, 95% CI 1.03 to 39.78) probably result in a large increase in the maintenance of sinus rhythm at hospital discharge or end of study follow-up (certainty of evidence: moderate), and procainamide (RR: 4.29, 95% CI 0.63 to 29.03), flecainide (RR 3.57, 95% CI 0.24 to 52.30) and vernakalant (RR: 1.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 27.37) may result in a large increase in maintenance of sinus rhythm at hospital discharge or end of study follow-up (certainty of evidence: low). All tested electrical cardioversion strategies for atrial flutter had very high efficacy (97.9% to 100%). The rate of mortality (14 deaths) and stroke or systemic embolism (3 events) at 30 days was extremely low. Data on quality of life were scarce and of uncertain clinical significance. No information was available regarding heart failure readmissions. Data on duration of hospitalisation was scarce, of low quality, and could not be pooled.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the low quality of evidence, this systematic review provides important information on electrical and pharmacological strategies to help patients and physicians deal with AF and atrial flutter. In the assessment of the patient comorbidity profile, antiarrhythmic drug onset of action and side effect profile versus the need for a physician with experience in sedation, or anaesthetics support for electrical cardioversion are key aspects when choosing the cardioversion method.

Comparative effects of progestin-based combination therapy for endometrial cancer or atypical endometrial hyperplasia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objectives

The objective of this network meta-analysis is to systematically compare the efficacy of diverse progestin-based combination regimens in treating patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer or atypical endometrial hyperplasia. The primary goal is to discern the optimal combination treatment regimen through a comprehensive examination of their respective effectiveness.

Methods

We systematically searched four prominent databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, for randomized controlled trials addressing the efficacy of progestins or progestin combinations in the treatment of patients with endometrial cancer or atypical endometrial hyperplasia. The search spanned from the inception of these databases to December 2023. Key outcome indicators encompassed survival indices, criteria for assessing efficacy, as well as pregnancy and relapse rate. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024496311).

Results

From the 1,558 articles initially retrieved, we included 27 studies involving a total of 5,323 subjects in our analysis. The results of the network meta-analysis revealed that the mTOR inhibitor+megestrol acetate (MA)+tamoxifen regimen secured the top rank in maintaining stable disease (SD) (SUCRA=73.4%) and extending progression-free survival (PFS) (SUCRA=72.4%). Additionally, the progestin combined with tamoxifen regimen claimed the leading position in enhancing the partial response (PR) (SUCRA=75.2%) and prolonging overall survival (OS) (SUCRA=80%). The LNG-IUS-based dual progestin regimen emerged as the frontrunner in improving the complete response (CR) (SUCRA=98.7%), objective response rate (ORR) (SUCRA=99.1%), pregnancy rate (SUCRA=83.7%), and mitigating progression (SUCRA=8.0%) and relapse rate (SUCRA=47.4%). In terms of safety, The LNG-IUS-based dual progestin regimen had the lowest likelihood of adverse events (SUCRA=4.2%), while the mTOR inhibitor regimen (SUCRA=89.2%) and mTOR inbitor+MA+tamoxifen regimen (SUCRA=88.4%) had the highest likelihood of adverse events.

Conclusions

Patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer or atypical endometrial hyperplasia exhibited the most favorable prognosis when undergoing progestin combination therapy that included tamoxifen, mTOR inhibitor, or LNG-IUS. Notably, among these options, the LNG-IUS-based dual progestin regimen emerged as particularly promising for potential application.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42024496311.

Comparing Efficacy of Guselkumab versus Ustekinumab in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis: An Adjusted Comparison Using Individual Patient Data from the DISCOVER and PSUMMIT Trials

INTRODUCTION

Two biologic therapies for psoriatic arthritis (PsA), guselkumab and ustekinumab, have demonstrated superior efficacy versus placebo in clinical trials. However, no head-to-head studies have been conducted comparing these two treatments for PsA. The objective was to indirectly compare guselkumab and ustekinumab on joint and skin efficacy up to week 52, using pooled individual patient-level data (IPD) from PsA trials.

METHODS

IPD, including baseline characteristics, American College of Rheumatology (ACR) scores and Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) response from guselkumab (DISCOVER-1 and -2) and ustekinumab (PSUMMIT 1 and 2) trials were pooled. Differences in patient characteristics across trials were adjusted using multivariate logistic regression. Odds ratios (OR) were used to derive absolute response probabilities in the guselkumab trial population and were presented with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Most baseline characteristics for guselkumab-treated patients (100 mg every 8 weeks [Q8W]; 100 mg every 4 weeks [Q4W]) were comparable to ustekinumab-treated patients (45/90 mg). In biologic-naïve patients, both guselkumab doses showed significantly higher ACR 20 (Q8W: 1.97; 1.37, 2.84; Q4W: 2.04; 1.40, 2.96) and PASI 90 (Q8W: 2.33; 1.52, 3.56; Q4W: 2.57; 1.67, 3.97) versus ustekinumab from week 16 onwards. In biologic-experienced patients, both guselkumab doses showed significantly higher ACR 20 (Q8W: 2.57; 1.11, 5.93; Q4W: 2.63; 1.12, 6.17) versus ustekinumab from week 24 onwards; for PASI 90, both guselkumab doses were superior to ustekinumab at week 16 and 52 (Q8W: 3.96; 1.39, 11.27; Q4W: 13.10; 4.18, 41.04). Guselkumab efficacy was similar and robust across primary, scenario, and sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

IPD analysis demonstrated that both guselkumab doses were superior to ustekinumab for ACR 20 from weeks 16 (biologic-naïve) and 24 (biologic-experienced) onwards, and for PASI 90 at weeks 16 and 52 for both subgroups.

Comparative efficacy of interventional therapies and devices for coronary in-stent restenosis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

In-stent restenosis (ISR) has become a significant obstacle to interventional therapy for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The optimal percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy for patients with coronary ISR remains controversial. This network meta-analysis (NMA) was aimed to compare and estimate the effectiveness of different PCI strategies and commercial devices for the treatment of patients with coronary ISR.

Methods

In present study, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from database inception to October 20, 2022, to identify randomized controlled trials. We included studies comparing various PCI strategies for the treatment of any type of coronary ISR. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD 42022364308.

Results

We included 44 eligible trials including 8479 patients, 39 trials comparing the treatment effects of 10 PCIs, and 5 trials comparing the efficacy between different types of drug-eluting stent (DES) or drug-coated balloon (DCB) devices. Among the PCIs, everolimus-eluting stent was the optimal strategy considering target lesion revascularization (TLR), percent diameter stenosis (%DS), and binary restenosis (BR), and sirolimus-coated balloon was the optimal strategy considering late lumen loss (LLL). In the comparison of commercial devices, the combination strategy excimer laser coronary angioplasty plus SeQuent Please paclitaxel-coated balloon showed promising therapeutic prospects.

Conclusions

DCB and DES remain the preferred treatment strategies for coronary ISR, considering both the primary clinical outcome (TLR) and the angiographic outcomes (LLL, BR, %DS). Personalized combination interventions including DCB or DES hold promise as a novel potential treatment pattern for coronary ISR.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of olokizumab at different dosages in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the relative efficacy and safety of olokizumab at different dosages in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

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 olokizumab administered intravenously to RA patients at 64 mg/kg every 2 or 4 weeks (Q2 or Q4W).

RESULTS

Five RCTs comprising 2609 patients met the inclusion criteria. Both olokizumab Q2 and Q4W treatments achieved a significant American College of Rheumatology 20% response (ACR20) compared with the placebo (odds ratio [OR] 3.21, 95% credible interval [CrI] 2.53-4.09; OR 3.05, 95% CrI 2.43-3.86). However, olokizumab Q2W was associated with the most favorable surface using the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for the ACR20 response rate. The ranking probability based on the SUCRA indicated that olokizumab Q2W had the highest probability of being considered the best treatment option for achieving the ACR20 response rate, followed by olokizumab Q4W, adalimumab, and placebo. The ACR50 and 70 response rates showed a similar distribution pattern to the ACR20 response rate, except that olokizumab Q4W had a higher-ranking probability than olokizumab Q2W for ACR50. The SUCRA rating likelihood of adverse events (AEs) and withdrawal due to AEs showed that a placebo was likely to be the best intervention.

CONCLUSION

Both olokizumab Q2 and Q4W were efficacious and well-tolerated treatments for active RA.

Relative remission rates of Janus kinase inhibitors in comparison with adalimumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The relative remission rates of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib compared with those of adalimumab were assessed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who responded poorly to methotrexate (MTX).

METHODS

We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine direct and indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with C‑reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), the Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI), and the Boolean remission of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib, and adalimumab in RA patients with inadequate responses to MTX.

RESULTS

Four RCTs, comprising 3507 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The filgotinib 200 mg + MTX and upadacitinib 15 mg + MTX groups showed a significantly higher DAS28-CRP < 2.6 than adalimumab 40 mg + MTX. Upadacitinib 15 mg + MTX showed a significantly higher CDAI (≤ 2.8) than adalimumab 40 mg + MTX (odds ratio [OR]: 1.62; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 1.16-2.29). The ranking probability based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) indicated that upadacitinib 15 mg + MTX had the highest probability of being the best treatment as it achieved a CDAI ≤ 2.8, followed by filgotinib 200 mg + MTX, baricitinib 4 mg + MTX, tofacitinib 5 mg + MTX, and adalimumab 40 mg + MTX. The Boolean remission showed the same distribution pattern as that of the CDAI ≤ 2.8. Upadacitinib 15 mg + MTX showed a significantly higher SDAI ≤ 3.3 than adalimumab 40 mg + MTX (OR: 1.62; 95% CrI: 1.16-2.28). SUCRA ranking based on SDAI ≤ 3.3 indicated that upadacitinib 15 mg + MTX had the highest probability of being the best treatment for achieving an SDAI ≤ 3.3, followed by baricitinib 4 mg + MTX, filgotinib 200 mg + MTX, tofacitinib 5 mg + MTX, and adalimumab 40 mg + MTX.

CONCLUSIONS

In RA patients with an inadequate response to MTX, remission rates with JAK inhibitors were significantly higher; there is evidence for differences in efficacy regarding remission among the different JAK inhibitors.

Rapid reviews methods series: Guidance on assessing the certainty of evidence

This paper is part of a series of methodological guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. Rapid reviews (RRs) use modified systematic review methods to accelerate the review process while maintaining systematic, transparent and reproducible methods. This paper addresses considerations for rating the certainty of evidence (COE) in RRs. We recommend the full implementation of GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) for Cochrane RRs if time and resources allow.If time or other resources do not permit the full implementation of GRADE, the following recommendations can be considered: (1) limit rating COE to the main intervention and comparator and limit the number of outcomes to critical benefits and harms; (2) if a literature review or a Delphi approach to rate the importance of outcomes is not feasible, rely on informal judgements of knowledge users, topic experts or team members; (3) replace independent rating of the COE by two reviewers with single-reviewer rating and verification by a second reviewer and (4) if effect estimates of a well-conducted systematic review are incorporated into an RR, use existing COE grades from such a review. We advise against changing the definition of COE or the domains considered part of the GRADE approach for RRs.

A Network Meta-Analysis of the Systemic Therapies in Unresectable Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma

The current standard treatment for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LASCCHN) comprises concurrent radiotherapy (CRT) alongside platinum-based chemotherapy. However, innovative therapeutic alternatives are being evaluated in phase II/III randomized trials. This study employed a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) using fixed effects to provide both direct and indirect comparisons of all existing treatment modalities for unresectable LASCCHN.

METHODS

We referenced randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from January 2000 to July 2023 by extensively reviewing PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases, adhering to the Cochrane methodology. Relevant data, including summary estimates of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), were extracted from these selected studies and recorded in a predefined database sheet. Subsequently, we conducted a random effects network meta-analysis using a Bayesian framework.

RESULTS

Based on the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) values, the league table organizes the various treatments for OS in the following order: IC + RT&MTT, MTT-CRT, IC + CRT&MTT, CRT, IC + CRT, MTT-RT, IC + MTT-RT, and RT. In a similar order, the treatments rank as follows according to the league table: IC + CRT&MTT, MTT-CRT, IC + CRT, IC + RT&MTT, CRT, IC + MTT-RT, MTT-RT, and RT. Notably, none of these treatments showed significant advantages over concurrent chemoradiotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Despite concurrent chemoradiotherapy being the prevailing treatment for LASCCHN, our findings suggest the potential for improved outcomes when concurrent chemoradiotherapy is combined with targeted therapy or induction chemotherapy.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Thirteen Nonpharmacological Interventions for Increasing the Quality of Life in Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A variety of nonpharmacological interventions that improve the quality of life of patients with advanced cancer have been difficult for medical staff to select through randomized controlled trials or traditional meta-analyses. Thus, a network meta-analysis is necessary.

OBJECTIVE

This study used network meta-analysis to analyze the effect of 13 different nonpharmacological interventions on improving the living quality of patients with advanced cancer.

METHODS

Five English databases were searched up to January 2019. The search strategy only included terms relating to or describing the intervention.

RESULTS

The study included 13 different nonpharmacological interventions. The overall efficacy was summarized through a holistic study of quality of life. The study found that the combined effect sizes of 13 nonpharmacological interventions crossed the invalid line (weighted mean difference, -13 [95% confidence interval, -33 to 8.5] to 1.7 [95% confidence interval, -18 to 22]), indicating that none of the intervention was significantly different from each other. By evaluating the heterogeneity of this outcome, no significant evidence of heterogeneity ( P > .05) was observed. Probability ranking according to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve showed that there was a great possibility for the CanWalk intervention and structured multidisciplinary intervention to improve outcomes for cancer patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Thirteen nonpharmacological interventions did not significantly impact quality of life. Regarding the probability rank, CanWalk intervention may be the most promising way that advanced cancer patients can help themselves to a better life. Because of the limitations of the current studies, the conclusion needs further evidence.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Nurses should consider recommending moderate physical activity for patients with advanced cancer.

Exercise and Insulin Resistance Markers in Children and Adolescents With Excess Weight: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Importance

Although benefits have been reported for most exercise modalities, the most effective exercise approaches for reducing insulin resistance in children and adolescents with excess weight and the optimal exercise dose remain unknown.

Objective

To compare exercise training modalities and their association with changes in insulin resistance markers among children and adolescents with excess weight and to establish the optimal exercise dose.

Data Sources

For this systematic review and network meta-analysis, 6 electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL) were searched for studies from inception to April 1, 2023.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials (ie, randomized controlled trials and randomized trials without a control group) were included if they reported outcomes associated with aerobic training, resistance training, high-intensity interval training (HIIT), or a combination of these interventions.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data extraction for this systematic review was conducted following a network meta-analysis extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guideline. Effect sizes were calculated as the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI using random-effects inverse-variance models with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method. The hierarchy of competing interventions was defined using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve. The Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool, version 2 (RoB2), was used to independently assess the risk of bias of the included studies. The certainty of evidence in consistent networks was assessed using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The study protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO. Data analyses were conducted between May and June 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes were fasting glucose, insulin, and homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR).

Results

This analysis included 55 studies with a total of 3051 children and adolescents (mean [SD] age, 13.5 [2.3] years; 1537 girls [50.4%] and 1514 boys [49.6%]). Exercise was associated with reductions in fasting insulin (MD, -4.38 μU/mL [95% CI, -5.94 to -2.82 μU/mL]) and HOMA-IR (MD, -0.87 [95% CI, -1.20 to -0.53]). A nonlinear association in both markers was observed, with a required minimal exercise dosage of approximately 900 to 1200 metabolic equivalent of task minutes per week, especially in children and adolescents with insulin resistance at baseline. Combination HIIT and resistance training and concurrent training were the most effective approaches for reducing insulin resistance markers. On average, the certainty of evidence varied from low to moderate.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings underscore the role of exercise interventions in enhancing insulin resistance markers among children and adolescents with overweight and obesity. It is advisable to include resistance exercises alongside aerobic and HIIT programs for a minimum of two to three 60-minute sessions per week.

Systematic literature review and network meta-analysis of therapies for psoriatic arthritis on patient-reported outcomes

OBJECTIVES

Head-to-head clinical trials are common in psoriasis, but scarce in psoriatic arthritis (PsA), making treatment comparisons between therapeutic classes difficult. This study describes the relative effectiveness of targeted synthetic (ts) and biologic (b) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) through network meta-analysis (NMA).

DESIGN

A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted in January 2020. Bayesian NMAs were conducted to compare treatments on Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and 36-item Short Form (SF-36) Health Survey including Mental Component Summary (MCS) and Physical Component Summary (PCS) scores.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE (including Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily),Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating patients with PsA receiving tsDMARDS, bDMARDs or placebo were included in the SLR; there was no restriction on outcomes.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent researchers reviewed all citations. Data for studies meeting all inclusion criteria were extracted into a standardised Excel-based form by one reviewer and validated by a second reviewer. A third reviewer was consulted to resolve any discrepancies, as necessary. Risk of bias was assessed using the The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical effectiveness quality assessment checklist.

RESULTS

In total, 26 RCTs were included. For HAQ-DI, SF-36 PCS and SF-36 MCS scores, intravenous tumour necrosis factor (TNF) alpha inhibitors generally ranked higher than most other classes of therapies available to treat patients with PsA. For almost all outcomes, several interleukin (IL)-23, IL-17A, subcutaneous TNF and IL-12/23 agents offered comparable improvement, while cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4, phosphodiesterase-4 and Janus kinase inhibitors often had the lowest efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

While intravenous TNFs may provide some improvements in PROs relative to several other tsDMARDs and bDMARDs for the treatment of patients with PsA, differences between classes of therapies across outcomes were small.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Anti-PD-1 Monoclonal Antibodies (mAbs) Are Superior to Anti-PD-L1 mAbs When Combined with Chemotherapy in First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (mNSCLC): A Network Meta-Analysis

Platinum-based chemotherapy combined with anti-PD-1 or PD-L1 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) is now standard first-line therapy for mNSCLC patients without sensitizing driver mutations. Anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 mAbs are considered to be equivalent in efficacy. In the absence of head-to-head randomized control trials (RCTs), we utilized network meta-analysis (NWM) to provide an indirect comparison of their efficacy. A systematic literature review and NWM were performed using RCTs that investigated anti-PD-1 or PD-L1 mAbs ± chemotherapy in patients with mNSCLC in the first-line setting. The primary outcome was comparative overall survival (OS), while secondary outcomes were comparative progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and rate of grade 3 and higher toxicities. We identified 24 RCTs. Patients treated with anti-PD-1 mAb + chemotherapy compared with anti-PD-L1 mAb + chemotherapy showed superior mOS, mPFS, and ORR with a similar rate of grade 3 and higher toxicities. This difference in mOS was most pronounced in the PD-L1 TPS 1-49% population. The two mAbs were equivalent as single agents. Anti-PD-1 mAb + chemotherapy improved mOS when compared to anti-PD-1 mAb monotherapy, whereas anti-PD-L1 mAbs + chemotherapy did not when compared to anti-PD-L1 mAb monotherapy. Head-to-head RCTs are warranted in the future.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Guidance to Best Tools and Practices for Systematic Reviews

» Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.» A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.» Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Network meta-analysis in psychology and educational sciences: A systematic review of their characteristics

Network meta-analysis (NMA) allows the combination of evidence on the effectiveness of several interventions. NMA has mainly been applied in the medical science field, whereas in the domain of psychology and educational sciences its use is less frequent. Consequently, systematic reviews that describe the characteristics of published NMAs are limited to the field of medicine, and nothing is known about the characteristics of NMAs published in the psychology and educational sciences field. However, this information is still relevant for the design of future simulation studies and for detecting good and bad research practices. Thus, this study describes the features of the meta-analytic datasets of NMAs published in the field of psychology and educational sciences, as well as their methodological characteristics, and compares them to those observed in the medical domain. Results show that the number of studies included is larger in NMAs from psychology and educational sciences, the most commonly used effect size is the standardized mean difference (unlike the odds ratio in medicine), the sample size is smaller, more intervention groups are included, and inconsistent effects are observed more often. These results can be used in future simulation studies to generate realistic datasets. Finally, we warn about the poor quality of reporting of some technical aspects of the NMA, such as the statistical model used.

Pharmacologic Interventions to Prevent Delirium in Trauma Patients: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

To compare the relative efficacy of pharmacologic interventions in the prevention of delirium in ICU trauma patients.

DATA SOURCES

We searched Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Embase, and Cochrane Registry of Clinical Trials from database inception until June 7, 2022. We included randomized controlled trials comparing pharmacologic interventions in critically ill trauma patients.

STUDY SELECTION

Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias.

DATA EXTRACTION

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines for network analysis were followed. Random-effects models were fit using a Bayesian approach to network meta-analysis. Between-group comparisons were estimated using hazard ratios (HRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes, each with 95% credible intervals. Treatment rankings were estimated for each outcome in the form of surface under the cumulative ranking curve values.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total 3,541 citations were screened; six randomized clinical trials (n = 382 patients) were included. Compared with combined propofol-dexmedetomidine, there may be no difference in delirium prevalence with dexmedetomidine (HR 1.44, 95% CI 0.39-6.94), propofol (HR 2.38, 95% CI 0.68-11.36), nor haloperidol (HR 3.38, 95% CI 0.65-21.79); compared with dexmedetomidine alone, there may be no effect with propofol (HR 1.66, 95% CI 0.79-3.69) nor haloperidol (HR 2.30, 95% CI 0.88-6.61).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this network meta-analysis suggest that there is no difference found between pharmacologic interventions on delirium occurrence, length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, or mortality, in trauma ICU patients.

Effect of exercise and antioxidant supplementation on cellular lipid peroxidation in elderly individuals: Systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background: The viewpoints of previous studies on the correlation between exercise and cellular lipid peroxidation are contradictory from many perspectives and lack evidence for elder individuals. A new systematic review with network meta-analysis is necessary and will have significant practical value to provide high-quality evidence in the development of exercise protocols and an evidence-based guide for antioxidant supplementation for the elderly. Aims: To identify the cellular lipid peroxidation induced by different types of exercise, with or without antioxidant supplementation, in elderly individuals. Methods: Randomized controlled trials that recruited elderly participants and reported cellular lipid peroxidation indicators and were published in peer-reviewed journals in English were searched by a Boolean logic search strategy and screened in the databases PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Web of Science. The outcome measures were the biomarkers of oxidative stress in cell lipids in urine and blood, namely F2-isoprostanes, hydrogen peroxide (LOOH, PEROX, or LIPOX), malondialdehyde (MDA), and thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS). Result: 7 trials were included. A combination program of aerobic exercise (AE), low-intensity resistance training (LIRT), and a placebo intake (Placebo) and a combination program of aerobic exercise, low-intensity resistance training, and antioxidant supplementation (S) had the most and sub-most potential to dampen cellular lipid peroxidation (AE + LIRT + Placebo: 0.31 in Rank 1 and 0.2 in Rank 2; AE + LIRT + S: 0.19 in Rank 1 and 0.20 in Rank 2); A placebo intake (Placebo) and a blank intervention without exercise (NE) had the most and sub-most potential to induce an enhancement of cellular lipid peroxidation (Placebo: 0.51 in Rank 9 and 0.16 in Rank 8; NE: 0.16 in Rank 9 and 0.28 in Rank 8). All included studies had an unclear risk of selecting reporting. There were no high confidence ratings in all the direct and indirect comparisons, 4 comparisons in the direct evidence structure and 7 comparisons in the indirect evidence structure had moderate confidence. Conclusion: A combined protocol consisting of aerobic exercise and low-intensity resistance training is recommended to dampen cellular lipid peroxidation. Extra antioxidant supplementation might be unnecessary if an elderly individual has enough aerobic and resistance exercise. Systematic Review Registration: CRD42022367430.

Evidence for the cardiovascular effects of osteoporosis treatments in randomized trials of post-menopausal women: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

Osteoporosis medications have been reported to have beneficial and harmful cardiovascular effects. Much of this evidence stems from single reports and as such, a comprehensive examination of the evidence is needed. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) of cardiovascular adverse event (CAE) data from randomized trials of osteoporosis medications in postmenopausal women. Trials were identified from recent NMAs of osteoporosis treatment for fracture reduction with an updated literature search (December 2020). Included studies were randomized, included over 100 participants, and reported skeletal primary outcomes. We investigated three-point major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE3), four- (MACE4) and five-point MACE (MACE5), as well as myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke. Data were synthesized in a random-effects network meta-analysis using Bayesian modelling. Probabilistic ranking of treatment safety was performed. Relative to placebo, point estimates for the odds ratios (OR) with 95 % credible intervals (CrI) were also generated. We identified 75 trials (n = 136,940 women), of which 27 (68,699 women, nine arms) reported CAEs. In women randomized to placebo, the overall event rate for the MACE3 outcome was 2.58 % compared with 1.99 % in those randomized to all other active comparators. Probabilistic ranking found abaloparatide, oral bisphosphonates, teriparatide, and menopausal hormone therapy were less likely to have increased risk of CAEs than placebo, while romosozumab ranked more likely to have increased risk of CAEs than placebo for all outcomes. Compared with placebo, abaloparatide (one trial, n = 1642) was associated with a reduced odds for MACE3 (OR = 0·31; 95%CrI: 0·06 to 0·99), MACE4 (0·28; 0·06 to 0·88) and MACE5 (0·25; 0·06 to 0·79). When all PTH analogues were grouped together, magnitude and direction of effects were consistent but no longer statistically significant. We did not find pooled direct and indirect evidence that osteoporosis treatments significantly increased the risk of adverse cardiovascular events relative to placebo. (PROSPERO: CRD42020178702).

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews1

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Side effect profile of pharmacologic therapies for liver fibrosis in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Several studies have found that antifibrosis treatment for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) can cause a variety of side effects. No network meta-analysis (NMA) analyzes the adverse events of antifibrotic drugs for NAFLD. This NMA aimed to systematically compare the drug-related side effects when using different pharmacological agents for the treatment of liver fibrosis in NAFLD. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were systematically searched to select related studies published in English from the database inception until 30 June 2022. We conducted Bayesian fixed-effects NMA using data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to derive relative risks (RRs). The surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities was used to assess ranking. A total of 26 RCTs with 19 interventions met the inclusion criteria. SUCRA analysis suggested that the lanifibranor group had the highest risk of diarrhea (SUCRA, 94), whereas the liraglutide group had the highest risk of constipation (SUCRA, 92.9). The semaglutide group showed the highest incidence of nausea (SUCRA, 81.2) and abdominal pain (SUCRA, 90.5), respectively. The cenicriviroc group showed the highest risk in the incidence of fatigue (SUCRA, 82.4). The MSDC-0602K group had the highest risk of headache (SUCRA, 76.4), whereas the obeticholic acid group had the highest risk of pruritus (SUCRA, 80.1). The risk of side effects significantly varied among different pharmacologic regimens, and evidence showed that lanifibranor, liraglutide, semaglutide, cenicriviroc, MSDC-0602K and obeticholic acid were the pharmacological interventions with the highest risk in patients with NAFLD. This study may guide clinicians and support further research.

Reporting and methodological quality of acupuncture network meta-analyses could be improved: an evidence mapping

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and map the reporting and methodological quality of network meta-analysis (NMA) on acupuncture.

METHODS

Published acupuncture NMAs were searched through eight databases from inception to February 2022. The reporting and methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Network Meta-Analysis (PRISMA-NMA) statement and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) checklist.

RESULTS

A total of 113 NMAs were identified. Most (99, 87.61%) studies were performed in China. Most studies focused on multiple acupuncture techniques (82.30%), and the main studied ailments were pain and poststroke sequelae (20.24%). The median (interquartile range (IQR)) score of the reporting quality was 26.5 (25-28.5). However, poor reporting rates in the protocol and registration (33.63%) and geometry of the network (35.40%), especially for China-based studies, were identified. The methodological quality of only 2 (1.77%) English studies was high. The reporting rate of Chinese studies was below 15% on each of items 4, 7, 10, and 12.

CONCLUSION

The reporting quality of the NMAs was moderate, but the methodological quality was very low. The reporting and methodological quality of future NMAs, especially for Chinese studies, need further improvement.

Efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions for depression in individuals with Parkinson's disease: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Depression in Parkinson's disease (PD) is a major health concern worldwide. Recently, an increasing number of non-pharmacological interventions have been used in PD to alleviate depressive symptoms. However, it is uncertain which intervention is the best, and related evidence is limited. This network meta-analysis was performed to compare and rank non-pharmacological interventions for PD and analyze their effects on depression to provide evidence for clinicians to choose appropriate non-pharmacological management options.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang databases were searched from inception to April 7, 2022. Two authors screened all studies, extracted the data, and evaluated the methodological quality. STATA software version 16.0 was used to conduct the network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Our network meta-analysis included 62 studies involving 3,050 participants and 35 non-pharmacological interventions. Although most non-pharmacological interventions showed non-significant effects, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values indicated that the best non-pharmacological intervention for depression was dance (82.3%), followed by LSVT-BIG therapy (77.4%), and CBT (73.6%).

CONCLUSION

Dance can be considered as an effective therapy for improving depression in patients with PD. In the future, more strictly designed trials are needed to verify the conclusions of this network meta-analysis.

Effect of drug therapy on nerve repair of moderate-severe traumatic brain injury: A network meta-analysis

Objective: This network meta-analysis aimed to explore the effect of different drugs on mortality and neurological improvement in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), and to clarify which drug might be used as a more promising intervention for treating such patients by ranking.

Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search from PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from the establishment of the database to 31 January 2022. Data were extracted from the included studies, and the quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The primary outcome measure was mortality in patients with TBI. The secondary outcome measures were the proportion of favorable outcomes and the occurrence of drug treatment–related side effects in patients with TBI in each drug treatment group. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata v16.0 and RevMan v5.3.0.

Results: We included 30 randomized controlled trials that included 13 interventions (TXA, EPO, progesterone, progesterone + vitamin D, atorvastatin, beta-blocker therapy, Bradycor, Enoxaparin, Tracoprodi, dexanabinol, selenium, simvastatin, and placebo). The analysis revealed that these drugs significantly reduced mortality in patients with TBI and increased the proportion of patients with favorable outcomes after TBI compared with placebo. In terms of mortality after drug treatment, the order from the lowest to the highest was progesterone + vitamin D, beta-blocker therapy, EPO, simvastatin, Enoxaparin, Bradycor, Tracoprodi, selenium, atorvastatin, TXA, progesterone, dexanabinol, and placebo. In terms of the proportion of patients with favorable outcomes after drug treatment, the order from the highest to the lowest was as follows: Enoxaparin, progesterone + vitamin D, atorvastatin, simvastatin, Bradycor, EPO, beta-blocker therapy, progesterone, Tracoprodi, TXA, selenium, dexanabinol, and placebo. In addition, based on the classification of Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) scores after each drug treatment, this study also analyzed the three aspects of good recovery, moderate disability, and severe disability. It involved 10 interventions and revealed that compared with placebo treatment, a higher proportion of patients had a good recovery and moderate disability after treatment with progesterone + vitamin D, Bradycor, EPO, and progesterone. Meanwhile, the proportion of patients with a severe disability after treatment with progesterone + vitamin D and Bradycor was also low.

Conclusion: The analysis of this study revealed that in patients with TBI, TXA, EPO, progesterone, progesterone + vitamin D, atorvastatin, beta-blocker therapy, Bradycor, Enoxaparin, Tracoprodi, dexanabinol, selenium, and simvastatin all reduced mortality and increased the proportion of patients with favorable outcomes in such patients compared with placebo. Among these, the progesterone + vitamin D had not only a higher proportion of patients with good recovery and moderate disability but also a lower proportion of patients with severe disability and mortality. However, whether this intervention can be used for clinical promotion still needs further exploration.

Comparative efficacy of Honghua class injections for treating acute ischemic stroke: A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background: Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is associated with high morbidity, mortality, and disability. Clinical trials have shown that Honghua class injections (HCIs) combined with WM achieve better clinical efficacy than WM alone. In this study, we performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy of different HCIs combined with WM in treating AIS.

Methods: First, the inclusion and exclusion criteria were established. From inception to 1 June 2022, a systematic literature search was conducted in multiple databases for the treatment of AIS with HCIs, including Honghua injection (HI), Safflower Yellow injection (SYI), Guhong injection (GHI), and Danhong injection (DHI). Subsequently, OpenBUGS 3.2.3 was applied to conduct a Bayesian algorithm, and Stata 16.0 was used to prepare the graphs. Multidimensional cluster analysis was performed using the “scatterplot3d” package in R 3.6.1 software.

Results: In this NMA, a total of 120 eligible RCTs were included, involving 12,658 patients, and evaluating the clinical effectiveness rates, activities of daily living (ADL), hemorheological indexes, and adverse reactions (ADRs). DHI + WM was the best intervention for improving the clinical effectiveness rate. Moreover, cluster analysis demonstrated that DHI + WM and SYI + WM had better comprehensive therapeutic effects. As most of the included RCTs did not monitor ADRs, the safety of the HCIs remains to be further explored.

Conclusion: DHI + WM and SYI + WM probably have a better clinical efficacy on AIS patients. Nevertheless, due to the limitation of this NMA, this conclusion may be biased. High-quality RCTs should be performed to validate our findings.

Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42021229599

Mixed Treatments Comparison of Oral Nutrition Interventions for Blood Immune Cell Parameters in Cancer Patients: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Oral nutrition interventions are commonly applied as an assistant therapeutic approach, which could affect the balance of the immunological response but with mixed evidence. The objective of this study is to identify the potential of different oral nutrition interventions for blood immune cell parameters in cancer patients. Randomized controlled trials, which were published in peer-reviewed journals in the language of English, and which identified the effects of different oral nutrition interventions on cancer patients, were screened and included in the databases of PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Web of Science. White blood cell count (WBC), lymphocyte count, CD4/CD8, and neutrophil count were selected as outcome measures. For the result, 11 trials were included. The agreement between authors reached a kappa value of 0.78. Beta-carotene supplementation has a high potential in inducing a positive effect on blood immune cell parameters for cancer patients (first positive for WBC and CD4/CD8, second positive for lymphocyte count), as well as a combination of physical exercise and hypocaloric healthy eating intervention (first positive for lymphocyte and neutrophil count, second positive for WBC). Oral nutrition supplementations with a single substance have less potential to provide a positive effect on blood immune cell parameters for cancer patients (glutamine: 0.30 and 0.28 to be the last selection for WBCs and lymphocytes; Omega 3: 0.37 to be the last selection for WBCs; Protein: 0.44 to be the last selection for lymphocytes; Zinc: 0.60 to be the last selection for neutrophils). In conclusion, the programs of immunonutrition therapy for different cancer patients might be different. The past perception that mixed oral nutritional supplementations are superior to oral nutritional supplements with a single substance might be wrong and the selection of oral nutritional supplementation need cautiousness. A combination of physical exercise might have a positive effect but also needs a higher level of evidence. Registration Number: CRD42021286396.

Comparative Effectiveness of Guselkumab in Psoriatic Arthritis: Updates to a Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Objective

The interleukin (IL)-23 p19-subunit inhibitor guselkumab has been previously compared with other targeted therapies for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) through network meta-analysis (NMA). The objective of this NMA update was to include new guselkumab COSMOS trial data, and two key comparators: the IL-23 inhibitor, risankizumab and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, upadacitinib.

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials up to February 2021. A hand-search identified newer agents up to July 2021. Bayesian NMAs were performed to compare treatments on American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) response, modified van der Heijde-Sharp (vdH-S) score, and serious adverse events (SAEs).

Results

For ACR 20, guselkumab 100 mg every 8 weeks (Q8W) and every 4 weeks (Q4W) were comparable (i.e. overlap in credible intervals) to most other agents, including risankizumab, upadacitinib, subcutaneous tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, and most IL-17A inhibitors. For PASI 90, guselkumab Q8W and Q4W were better than multiple agents, including subcutaneous TNF and JAK inhibitors. For vdH-S, guselkumab Q8W was similar to risankizumab, while guselkumab Q4W was better; both doses were comparable to most other agents. Most agents had comparable SAEs.

Conclusions

Guselkumab demonstrates better skin efficacy than most other targeted PsA therapies, including upadacitinib. For vdH-S, both guselkumab doses are comparable to most treatments, with both doses ranking higher than most, including upadacitinib and risankizumab. Both guselkumab doses demonstrate comparable ACR responses to most other agents, including upadacitinib and risankizumab, and rank favorably in the network for SAEs.

The optimal dose of oral tranexamic acid in melasma: A network meta-analysis

Background

Melasma is a chronic skin condition that adversely impacts quality of life. Although many therapeutic modalities are available there is no single best treatment for melasma. Oral tranexamic acid has been used for the treatment of this condition but its optimal dose is yet to be established.

Objectives

We used network meta-analysis to determine the optimal dose of oral tranexamic acid for the treatment of melasma.

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive search of all studies of oral tranexamic acid for the treatment of melasma up to September 2020 using PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library database. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the Jadad score and the Cochrane’s risk of bias assessment tool. Only high quality randomised controlled trials were selected. Some studies lacked standard deviation of changes from baseline and these were estimated using the correlation coefficient obtained from another similar study.

Results

A total of 92 studies were identified of which 6 randomized controlled trials comprising 599 patients were included to form 3 pair-wise network comparisons. The mean age of the patients in these studies ranged from 30.3 to 46.5 years and the treatment duration ranged from 8 to 12 weeks. The Jadad scores ranged from 5 to 8.

The optimal dose and duration of oral tranexamic acid was estimated to be 750 mg per day for 12 consecutive weeks.

Limitations

Some confounding factors might not have been described in the original studies. Although clear rules were followed, the Melasma Area and Severity Index and the modified Melasma Area and Severity Index were scored by independent physicians and hence inter-observer bias could not be excluded.

Conclusion

Oral tranexamic acid is a promising drug for the treatment of melasma. This is the first network meta-analysis to determine the optimal dose of this drug and to report the effects of different dosages. The optimal dose is 250 mg three times per day for 12 weeks, but 250 mg twice daily may be an acceptable option in poorly adherent patients. Our findings will allow physicians to balance drug effects and medication adherence. Personalized treatment plans are warranted.

Dual anti-platelet therapy for secondary prevention in intracranial atherosclerotic disease: a network meta-analysis

Background:

Intracranial arterial stenosis (ICAS) is a non-marginal cause of stroke/transient ischemic attacks (TIAs) and is associated with high stroke recurrence rate. Some studies have investigated the best secondary prevention ranging from antithrombotic therapy to endovascular treatment (ET). However, no direct comparison between all the possible treatments is currently available especially between single and dual anti-platelet therapies (SAPT and DAPT).

Aim:

To establish whether DAPT is more effective than SAPT in preventing the recurrence of ICAS-related stroke, by means of a network meta-analysis (NMA).

Design:

Systematic review and NMA in accordance to PRISMA guidelines.

Data sources and methods:

We performed a systematic review of trials investigating secondary prevention (SAPT or DAPT, anticoagulant treatment or ET) in patients with symptomatic ICAS available in MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science from January 1989 to May 2021. We defined our primary efficacy outcome as the recurrence of ischemic stroke/TIA. We analysed the extracted data with Bayesian NMA approach.

Results:

We identified 815 studies and included 5 trials in the NMA. Sequence generation was adequate in all the selected studies while the allocation concealment method was described in one study. All the included studies reported the pre-specified primary outcomes, and outcome assessment was blinded in all the studies. We used the fixed-effect approach as the heterogeneity was not significant (p > 0.1) according to the Cochran’s Q statistic. DAPT was superior to SAPT and DAPT + ET in preventing stroke/TIA recurrence [respectively, odds ratio (OR), 0.59; confidence interval (CI), 0.39–0.9; and OR, 0.49, CI, 0.26–0.88], while no difference was found between DAPT and oral anticoagulant therapy (OAC). DAPT was safer than OAC (OR, 0.48; CI, 0.26–0.89) and DAPT + ET (OR, 0.50; CI, 0.35–0.71), while no difference was found between DAPT and SAPT.

Conclusion:

DAPT is more effective than SAPT for secondary stroke prevention in patients with symptomatic ICAS, without increasing the risk of haemorrhage.

Registration:

Prospero/CRD42019140033.

Optimal induction chemotherapy regimen for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: an update Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Induction chemotherapy (IC) plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) has been established as standard of care for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (LANPC). No direct comparison between different IC regimens has been performed. We conducted Bayesian network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IC regimens in LANPC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically searched studies comparing different regimens of IC plus CCRT versus CCRT alone for LANPC. Pairwise meta-analysis and Bayesian network meta-analysis were conducted using Review Manger, Stata and R software.

RESULTS

Eight eligible studies with a total of 2382 patients were involved. Compared with CCRT alone, IC + CCRT significantly improved PFS (HR = 0.68 [95% CI 0.59-0.79]) and OS (HR = 0.72 [95% CI 0.61-0.86]) in conventional meta-analysis. In Bayesian network meta-analysis, GP (gemcitabine and cisplatin) had advantage in prolonging PFS, OS and DMFS. GP had adverse but manageable impacts on hemoglobin and platelet. Meanwhile, treatment compliance of GP was higher than that of other regimens.

CONCLUSION

Based on existing evidences, GP could likely to be recommended as an optimal IC regimen for LANPC.

A Mixed Comparison of Interventions for Kinesiophobia in Individuals With Musculoskeletal Pain: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Objective

This systematic review aims to make a mixed comparison of interventions for kinesiophobia and individuals with musculoskeletal pain.

Methods

A comprehensive search strategy was conducted in the database of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science with the inclusion criteria: (1) randomized controlled design; (2) patients with musculoskeletal pain as participants; (3) treatments protocols of kinesiophobia as interventions or comparisons; (4) the score of Tampa Scale Kinesiophobia (TSK) as outcome measures. A network meta-analysis was used to synthesize the data after checking the model consistency. The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Assessment Tool.

Results

Thirty-one studies were included in this review after a comprehensive search strategy with a low risk of bias and good consistency. According to the results of the network meta-analysis, a multi-modal treatment protocol had the highest probability to become the best choice in dealing with kinesiophobia caused by musculoskeletal pain, whereas psychological treatment protocols also showed a potentially positive effect on musculoskeletal pain-induced kinesiophobia.

Conclusion

Multi-modal protocols could be recommended as the preferred option when dealing with kinesiophobia caused by musculoskeletal pain. However, it is still worth mentioning that there are also potentially positive therapeutic effects of psychological interventions. Since the concept of kinesiophobia is based on the fear-avoidance model, the psychological mechanism should be paid enough attention to during treatment.

Registration Number

CRD42021286450.

A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis Investigating the Effectiveness of Psychological Short-Term Interventions in Inpatient Palliative Care Settings

This paper reviews and summarises the evidence of short-term psychosocial interventions (up to 12 sessions delivered within less than eight weeks) on anxiety, depression, and emotional distress in palliative patients in inpatient settings. We screened publications from the following five databases, Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and CINAHL, from their inception to 10 September 2021. The eligible studies included controls receiving standard palliative care, actively treated controls, and wait-list controls. Nine studies met the eligibility criteria and reported the effects of five psychosocial interventions in a total of N = 543 patients. We followed PRISMA-guidelines for outcome reporting and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for assessing study quality. This paper used the network meta-analysis to compare multiple treatments by providing greater statistical power and the cross-validation of observed treatment effects, using the R package BUGSnet. Compared to control groups, the following psychosocial interventions in inpatient settings showed to be superior: life review interventions were the best ranked treatment for improving anxiety and distress, while the top ranked treatment for reducing depression was outlook intervention. The short-term psychosocial interventions investigated in this meta-analysis, especially life review intervention, are feasible and can potentially improve anxiety, depression, and distress in palliative inpatients and should therefore be offered in inpatient settings.

Efficacy and safety of first-line checkpoint inhibitors-based treatments for non-oncogene-addicted non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Frontline immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI)-based regimens in non-oncogene-addicted non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been deeply investigated. To rank the available therapeutic options, we carried out a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis.

Methods

A comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ICI regimens, and a pairwise and a network meta-analysis (NMA) with an all-comers and a stratified strategy were conducted. Endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs).

Results

Nineteen RCTs involving 17 treatment regimens were included. For the all-comers population, pembrolizumab/chemotherapy (CT) and cemiplimab were most likely the best treatments. For programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) <1% nivolumab/ipilimumab with/without CT, for PD-L1 >1% and 1%-49% pembrolizumab/CT and for PD-L1 >50% cemiplimab ranked first for OS. In non-squamous (NSQ), pembrolizumab with/without CT ranked first for OS; cemiplimab ranked worse than the unselected population. In squamous (SQ), pooled hazard ratio (HR) showed a better chance in improving efficacy for combination strategy, while monotherapy did not, except for cemiplimab that ranked second. Atezolizumab/CT/bevacizumab ranked first in most subgroups for PFS. Direct comparison showed a non-statistically significant benefit of ICI regimens for the liver metastases cohort in OS, with a good ranking for pembrolizumab/CT and atezolizumab/bevacizumab/CT. Regarding brain metastases, all ICI regimens demonstrated an improvement in OS and PFS compared to CT. Nivolumab/ipilimumab/CT ranked better in this subset.

Conclusions

Our meta-analysis updated on the most recent findings demonstrates that different ICI treatments rank differently in specific NSCLC settings (histology, biomarker and clinical presentation) offering a novel challenging scenario for clinical decision making and research planning.

•

Several frontline checkpoint inhibitors regimens for wild-type NSCLC are available.

•

Efficacy and safety of these regimens were compared and ranked using a meta-analysis.

•

Different ICI treatments rank differently in specific NSCLC cohorts of interest.

•

Head-to-head RCTs are awaited to confirm this comprehensive and updated analysis.

Intravascular Versus Surface Cooling in Patients Resuscitated From Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis With Focus on Temperature Feedback

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare the effect of intravascular cooling (IC), surface cooling with temperature feedback (SCF), and surface cooling without temperature feedback (SCnoF) on neurologic outcome and survival in patients successfully resuscitated from cardiac arrest (CA) and treated with targeted temperature management (TTM) at 32-34°C.

DATA SOURCES

We performed a systematic review on Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Clinical Trials up to June 30, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

We included randomized and nonrandomized studies on IC, SCF, and SCnoF in adult humans resuscitated from CA undergoing TTM, reporting neurologic outcome or survival.

DATA EXTRACTION

We performed a network meta-analysis to assess the comparative effects of IC, SCF, and SCnoF. The overall effect between two cooling methods included the effect of direct and indirect comparisons. Results are given as odds ratios (OR) and 95% CIs. Rankograms estimated the probability of TTM methods being ranked first, second, and third best interventions.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 14 studies involving 4,062 patients met the inclusion criteria. Four studies were randomized controlled studies, and 10 studies were nonrandomized observational studies. IC compared with SCnoF was significantly associated with better neurologic outcome (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.49-0.74) and survival (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.66-0.96). IC compared with SCF, and SCF compared with SCnoF did not show significant differences in neurologic outcome and survival. The rankogram showed that IC had the highest probability to be the most beneficial cooling method, followed by SCF and SCnoF.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that in patients resuscitated from CA and treated with TTM at 32-34°C, IC has the highest probability of being the most beneficial cooling method for survival and neurologic outcome.

Comparative Efficacy of Targeted Systemic Therapies for Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis without Topical Corticosteroids: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The comparative efficacy of targeted systemic therapies for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) has not been systematically assessed using recent phase 3 data. This network meta-analysis assesses the comparative efficacy of targeted systemic therapies without the addition of topical corticosteroids (TCS) and/or topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCI) in adults with moderate to severe AD.

METHODS

The systematic literature review searched through 17 May 2021 for phase 3/4 trials with upadacitinib, interleukin-4 (IL-4), interleukin-13 (IL-13), or JAK inhibitors compared with placebo or active intervention for adults and adolescents with moderate to severe AD with inadequate response to TCS/TCI or for whom TCS/TCI was medically inadvisable, without restrictions on year or region. Researchers assessed data using PRISMA guidelines. The proportion of patients achieving trial co-primary endpoints [Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) and reduction of ≥ 2 points from baseline; proportion of patients achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) improvement ≥ 75% from baseline (EASI-75)]; EASI improvement ≥ 90% from baseline (EASI-90); and ≥ 4-point improvement on Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale from baseline (ΔNRS ≥ 4) were evaluated using Bayesian network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Of 3415 initially identified records, network meta-analysis (NMA) ultimately included 6 records representing 9 unique studies. Two upadacitinib trials were also included. Eleven clinical trials including 6254 patients were analyzed. Upadacitinib 30 mg daily was the most efficacious therapy across all endpoints at the primary endpoint (week 12 or 16) and at earlier timepoints, followed by upadacitinib 15 mg daily and abrocitinib 200 mg daily.

DISCUSSION

Many factors need to be considered for treatment selection for AD. These findings can help healthcare providers when personalizing a patient's treatment.

CONCLUSION

Upadacitinib 30 mg daily, upadacitinib 15 mg daily, and abrocitinib 200 mg daily may be the most efficacious targeted systemic therapies over 12-16 weeks of therapy in AD.

Comparative Effectiveness of Rituximab and Common Induction Therapies for Lupus Nephritis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Objective

This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety (infection events) between rituximab (RTX), tacrolimus (TAC), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), and cyclophosphamide (CYC) as induction therapies in lupus nephritis (LN).

Methods

Electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, were searched from inception up to December 9, 2021. Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to combine the direct and indirect evidence of different drugs for LN patients. The pooled relative effects were shown using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% credible intervals (CrIs).

Results

Nineteen studies (1,566 patients) met the inclusion criteria and were selected in the present study. The network meta-analysis reported that no statistically significant differences were found in partial remission (PR) and infection among the four drugs. RTX showed a significantly higher complete remission (CR) than MMF (OR = 2.60, 95% CrI = 1.00–7.10) and seemed to be more effective than CYC (OR = 4.20, 95% CrI = 1.70–14.00). MMF had a better CR than CYC (OR = 1.60, 95% CrI = 1.00–3.20). TAC presented a better overall response than CYC (OR = 3.70, 95% CrI = 1.20–12.00). Regarding CR and overall response, the maximum surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values were 96.94% for RTX and 80.15% for TAC. The maximum SUCRA value of infection reaction was 74.98% for RTX and the minimum value was 30.17% for TAC, respectively.

Conclusions

RTX and TAC were the most effective drugs for induction remission in LN. Among the four drugs, TAC had the lowest probability of infection, and RTX showed the highest probability of experiencing an infection. This meta-analysis could not conclude about other adverse events.

Effects of acute and preventive therapies for episodic and chronic cluster headache: A scoping review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Cluster headache is the most common primary headache disorder of the trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, and it is highly disabling.

OBJECTIVE

We undertake a scoping review to characterize therapies to prevent and acutely treat cluster headache, characterize trial methodology utilized in studies, and recommend future trial "good practices." We also assess homogeneity of studies and feasibility for future network meta-analyses (NMAs) to compare acute and preventive treatments for cluster headache.

METHODS

A priori protocol for this scoping review was registered and available on Open Science Forum. We sought studies that enrolled adult patients with cluster headache as identified by accepted diagnostic criteria. Both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (with a control group) were included. The interventions of interest were medications, procedures, devices, surgeries, and behavioral/psychological interventions, whereas comparators of interest were placebo, sham, or other active treatments. Outcomes were predefined; however, we did not exclude studies lacking these outcomes. A systemic search was conducted in Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane. We performed a targeted search for conference abstracts from journals prominent in the field.

RESULTS

We identified 56 studies: 45 RCTs, four studies only available in clinical trial registries, and seven observational studies. Of the 45 RCTs, 20 focused on acute therapies and 25 on preventive therapies. Overall, we determined that it is feasible to pursue a NMA for acute therapy focusing on 15 or 30-min headache reduction for acute trials, as we identified 11 trials in the combined population of patients with either episodic or chronic cluster headache (2 trials in populations with chronic cluster headache were also found). For preventive therapy of cluster headache, we identified trials with common outcomes that may be considered for NMA, however, as these trials had differences in treatment effect modifiers that could not be corrected, NMAs appear infeasible for this indication. We identified new studies looking at noninvasive vagal nerve stimulation, sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation, prednisone, and oxygen published since the most recent systematic review in the field, although these acute treatments were previously identified as effective. However, for calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies, galcanezumab demonstrated effectiveness in episodic cluster headache, but a lack of effectiveness in chronic cluster headache, and fremanezumab was not effective for episodic nor chronic cluster headache. This finding highlights that CGRP monoclonal antibodies may not show a class effect in cluster headache prevention and need to be considered individually.

CONCLUSIONS

We describe the treatment landscape of cluster headache for both acute and preventive treatments. Last, we present the NMAs we will undertake in acute therapies of cluster headache.

Network Meta-Analysis for Single-Case Design Studies: An Illustration

Single-case designs (SCDs) are used to evaluate the effects of interventions on individual participants. By repeatedly measuring participants under different conditions, SCD studies focus on individual effects rather than on group summaries. The main limitation of SCDs remains its generalisability to wider populations, reducing the relevance of their findings for practice and policy making. With this limitation in mind, methodological developments for synthesising SCD data from different studies that investigate the same research question have intensified in the past decades (e.g. multilevel modelling). However, these techniques are restricted to comparing two interventions at a time and can only incorporate evidence from studies that directly compare the two treatments of interest. These limitations could be addressed by using network meta-analysis that incorporates both direct and indirect evidence to simultaneously compare multiple interventions. Despite its potential, network meta-analytical techniques have yet to be applied to SCD data. Thus, in this paper, we argue that network meta-analysis can be a valuable tool to synthesise SCD data. We demonstrate the use of network meta-analysis in SCD data using a real dataset, and we conclude by reflecting on the challenges that SCD researchers might face when applying network meta-analysis methods to their data.

Efficacy and Safety of "Three Chinese Patent Medicines and Three TCM Prescriptions" for COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Objective

To systematically evaluate the efficacy, safety, and precision of TMTP for COVID-19.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials and retrospective studies were searched in 11 electronic databases. This network meta-analysis included trials using TMTP to treat patients with COVID-19. The traditional pairwise meta-analysis was done by using Stata 15, and Bayesian network meta-analysis was done with WinBUGS.

Results

18 trials were included with 2036 participants and 7 drugs. The results showed that LHQW had the most significant effects on improving expectoration, shortness of breath, sore throat, nausea, emesis, inappetence, muscle soreness, and headache, and it could produce the least adverse reactions. XBJ was the best drug for fever, fatigue, and diarrhea, which showed great advantages in lowering WBC levels. XFBD was the most effective drug for cough and chest distress, which had the least exacerbation rate. JHQG was the most effective for rhinobyon and rhinorrhea, while QFPD was the best drug in decreasing CRP levels.

Conclusion

This study was the first most large-scale and comprehensive research of TMTP for COVID-19. The results showed that LHQW had good efficacy without obvious adverse reactions. Therefore, we believe that it should be firstly recommended for COVID-19 treatment. In addition, XBJ is recommended for patients with a severe fever, fatigue, and diarrhea, and JHQG is recommended for patients with obvious rhinobyon and rhinorrhea; then, XFBD is recommended for patients with cough and chest tightness as the main manifestation. Our findings will help experts develop new COVID-19 treatment guidelines to better guide clinical medication for protecting the health of COVID-19 patients.

Comparative efficacy of 5 suture configurations for arthroscopic rotator cuff tear repair: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Rotator cuff tear is one of the most common complaint with shoulder pain, disability, or dysfunction. So far, different arthroscopic techniques including single row (SR), double row (DR), modified Mason-Allen (MMA), suture bridge (SB) and transosseous (TO) have been identified to repair rotator cuff. However, no study has reported the comparative efficacy of these 5 suture configurations. The overall aim of this network meta-analysis was to analyze the clinical outcomes and healing rate with arthroscopy among SR, DR, MMA, SB and TO.

METHODS

A systematic literature was searched from PubMed, EBSCO-MEDLINE, Web of Science, google scholar and www.dayi100.com , and checked for the inclusion and exclusion standards. The network meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.3 and SATA 15.0 software.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies were eligible for inclusion, including 15 randomized controlled trials, 17 retrospective and 2 prospective cohort studies, with total 3250 shoulders. Two individual reviewers evaluated the quality of the 34 studies, the score form 5 and 9 of 10 were attained according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for the 17 retrospective and 2 prospective studies. There was no significant distinction for the Constant score among 5 groups in the 16 studies with 1381 shoulders. The treatment strategies were ranked as MMA, DR, SB, SR and TO. In ASES score, 14 studies included 1464 shoulders showed that no significant differences was showed among all 5 groups after surgery. Whereas the efficacy probability was TO, MMA, DR, SB and SR according to the cumulative ranking curve. The healing rate in 25 studies include 2023 shoulders was significant in both SR versus DR [risk ratio 0.45 with 95% credible interval (0.31, 0.65)], and SR versus SB [risk ratio 0.45 (95% credible interval 0.29, 0.69)], and no significant in the other comparison, the ranking probability was MMA, SB, DR, TO and SR.

CONCLUSION

Based on the clinical results, this network meta-analysis revealed that these 5 suture configurations shows no significant difference. Meanwhile, suture bridge may be the optimum treatment strategy which may improve the healing rate postoperatively, whereas the DR is a suboptimal option for arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs.

Relative efficacy and safety of Janus kinase inhibitors for the treatment of active psoriatic arthritis: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the relative effectiveness and safety of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors in active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of upadacitinib 30 mg, upadacitinib 15 mg, tofacitinib 10 mg, tofacitinib 5 mg, and filgotinib 200 mg in active PsA patients.

RESULTS

Five RCTs including 2539 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) revealed that filgotinib 200 mg had the highest probability of reaching a 20% American College of Rheumatology (ACR20) response rate, followed by upadacitinib 30 mg, upadacitinib 15 mg, tofacitinib 10 mg, tofacitinib 5 mg, and placebo. Upadacitinib 30 mg had the highest probability of achieving the ACR50 and ACR70 response rates, followed by upadacitinib 15 mg, filgotinib 200 mg, tofacitinib 10 mg, tofacitinib 5 mg, and placebo. The SUCRA rating based on the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index response rate of at least 75% (PASI75) showed that tofacitinib 10 mg had the highest probability of achieving this response, followed by upadacitinib 15 mg, filgotinib 200 mg, tofacitinib 5 mg, and placebo. Safety analyses evaluated adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs), but no statistically relevant differences were found.

CONCLUSION

Based on the ACR response rates, filgotinib 200 mg and upadacitinib 30 mg were the most effective, whereas tofacitinib 10 mg was the most effective treatment for PsA based on PASI75. However, treatment options were similar with regard to AEs and SAEs.

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.