Nintedanib in Combination With Chemotherapy in the Treatment of Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Lung cancer remains a major global health challenge, contributing to substantial morbidity and mortality rates. Nintedanib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has demonstrated potential as a treatment for lung cancer. We aim to evaluate nintedanib's efficacy in treating patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), depending on the available evidence. Our search for relevant articles was conducted on PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that involved adult patients with NSCLC up to August 15, 2023. These trials compared the combination of nintedanib and chemotherapy to either placebo plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. Our main outcomes include progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). We utilized the Review Manager Software V.5.4 (The Cochrane Collaboration) to analyze all relevant data. Three identified trials, which included 2270 patients, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Our analysis showed significantly improved PFS (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-0.88, P < 0.0001) in patients receiving nintedanib compared to placebo. However, OS was not statistically significant (HR = 0.96; 95% CI 0.88-1.05, P = 0.35). In conclusion, a combination of nintedanib and chemotherapy in treating patients with NSCLC was associated with improved PFS than chemotherapy alone but not with improved OS. Further clinical trials assessing nintedanib in the setting of NSCLC are necessary before any further recommendations can be made.

Two-incision versus three-incision implantation technique of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator: Systematic review and meta-analysis of 2076 patients

INTRODUCTION

The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) was designed to detect and treat ventricular arrhythmias, which account for nearly half of all cardiovascular fatalities. Transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) complications were reduced by introducing subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD). S-ICD can be implanted using a three (3IT)- or two (2IT)-incision technique. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the 3IT to the 2IT.

METHODS

We searched medical electronic databases of Cochrane Central, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (WOS) from the study's inception until March 8, 2023. We compared 2IT and 3IT techniques of S-ICDs in terms of procedural, safety, and efficacy outcomes. We used Review Manager software for the statistical analysis. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous variables; and the mean difference with its 95% CI for continuous variables. We measured the heterogeneity using the chi-squared and I-squared tests. If the data were heterogeneous, the random-effect (RE) model was applied; otherwise, the fixed-effect model (FE) was used.

RESULTS

We included three retrospective observational studies of 2076 patients, 1209 in the 2IT group and 867 in the 3IT. There was no statistically significant difference in erosion after S-ICD when 2IT compared with 3IT (RR = 0.27, 95% CI: [0.07, 1.02]; P = .05) (I2 = 0%, P = .90). There was no difference in risk of infection, lead dislocation, or inappropriate shock with either incision technique (RR = 0.78, 95% CI: [0.48, 1.29]; P = .34) (I2 = 0%, P = .71) and (RR = 0.37, 95% CI: [0.02, 8.14]; P = .53) (I2 = 66%, P = .05) respectively. Our meta-analysis showed that the efficacy of both techniques is comparable; Appropriate shock (RR = 0.94, 95% CI: [0.78, 1.12]; P = .48) (I2 = 0%, P = .81) and first shock efficacy (RR = 0.89, 95% CI: [0.44, 1.82]; P = .76) (I2 = 0%, P = .87).

CONCLUSION

2IT and 3IT of S-ICD have comparable efficacy and complication rates; however, the 3IT exposes patients to an additional incision without any additional benefits. These findings may provide clinicians with a simpler method for subcutaneous ICD implantation and likely result in improved cosmetic outcomes. Before the 2IT technique can be considered the standard of care, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) must be conducted to assess its long-term safety and efficacy.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement for pure aortic regurgitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 33,484 patients

INTRODUCTION

The published studies comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in pure aortic regurgitation (AR) are conflicting. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare TAVI with SAVR in pure AR.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, and the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception until 23 June 2023. Review Manager was used for statistical analysis. The risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to compare dichotomous outcomes. Continuous outcomes were compared using the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. The inconsistency test (I2) assessed the heterogeneity. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa scale to assess the quality of included studies. We evaluated the strength of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) scale.

RESULTS

We included six studies with 5633 patients in the TAVI group and 27,851 in SAVR. In-hospital mortality was comparable between TAVI and SAVR (RR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.56, 1.42], P = 0.63) (I2 = 86%, P < 0.001). TAVI was favored over SAVR regarding in-hospital stroke (RR = 0.50; 95% CI [0.39, 0.66], P < 0.001) (I2 = 11%, P = 0.34), in-hospital acute kidney injury (RR = 0.56; 95% CI: [0.41, 0.76], P < 0.001) (I2 = 91%, P < 0.001), major bleeding (RR = 0.23; 95% CI: [0.17, 0.32], P < 0.001) (I2 = 78%, P < 0.001), and shorter hospital say (MD = - 4.76 days; 95% CI: [- 5.27, - 4.25], P < 0.001) (I2 = 88%, P < 0.001). In contrast, TAVI was associated with a higher rate of pacemaker implantation (RR = 1.68; 95% CI: [1.50, 1.88], P < 0.001) (I2 = 0% P = 0.83).

CONCLUSION

TAVI reduces in-hospital stroke and is associated with better safety outcomes than SAVR in patients with pure AR.

Ultrasound-based Accuro system versus traditional palpation technique for neuraxial anaesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

This review evaluates the efficacy and safety of Accuro, a handheld ultrasound device, compared to the palpation technique for neuraxial anaesthesia. Accuro provides real-time imaging guidance, potentially improving accuracy and efficiency.

METHODS

A comprehensive search across six electronic databases identified randomised clinical trials comparing Accuro with palpation for neuraxial anaesthesia. Risk ratios or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Bias risk was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.

RESULTS

Five studies (n=369) met the inclusion criteria. Accuro showed a favourable risk ratio for first insertion success (1.44 [95% CI [1.01, 2.05], p=0.05]). It significantly reduced needle skin passes (MD -0.63; 95% CI [-1.05, -0.21]; p<0.01), but not needle redirection (MD -1.31; 95% CI [-2.71, 0.11]; p=0.07). Procedure time was shorter in palpation (MD 127.82; 95% CI [8.68, -246.97]; p=0.04). Four studies had a low risk of bias; one had some concerns.

CONCLUSION

Accuro can potentially improve success rates and reduce skin passes in neuraxial anaesthesia. Further trials with larger samples are needed, especially in patients with anticipated difficulties.