Search

Vaccines are effective in preventing severe COVID-19, a disease for which few treatments are available and which can lead to disability or death. Widespread vaccination against COVID-19 may help protect those not yet able to get vaccinated. In addition, new and vaccine-resistant mutations of SARS-CoV-2 may be less likely to develop if the spread of COVID-19 is limited. Different vaccines are now widely available in many settings. However, vaccine hesitancy is a serious threat to the goal of nationwide vaccination in many countries and poses a substantial threat to population health. This scoping review maps interventions aimed at increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake and decreasing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.To scope the existing research landscape on interventions to enhance the willingness of different populations to be vaccinated against COVID-19, increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake, or decrease COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, and to map the evidence according to addressed populations and intervention categories.We searched Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index), WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, PsycINFO, and CINAHL to 11 October 2021.We included studies that assess the impact of interventions implemented to enhance the willingness of different populations to be vaccinated against COVID-19, increase vaccine uptake, or decrease COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised studies of intervention (NRSIs), observational studies and case studies with more than 100 participants. Furthermore, we included systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We did not limit the scope of the review to a specific population or to specific outcomes assessed. We excluded interventions addressing hesitancy towards vaccines for diseases other than COVID-19.Data were analysed according to a protocol uploaded to the Open Science Framework. We used an interactive scoping map to visualise the results of our scoping review. We mapped the identified interventions according to pre-specified intervention categories, that were adapted to better fit the evidence. The intervention categories were: communication interventions, policy interventions, educational interventions, incentives (both financial and non-financial), interventions to improve access, and multidimensional interventions. The study outcomes were also included in the mapping. Furthermore, we mapped the country in which the study was conducted, the addressed population, and whether the design was randomised-controlled or not.We included 96 studies in the scoping review, 35 of which are ongoing and 61 studies with published results. We did not identify any relevant systematic reviews. For an overview, please see the interactive scoping map (https://tinyurl.com/2p9jmx24) STUDIES WITH PUBLISHED RESULTS Of the 61 studies with published results, 46 studies were RCTs and 15 NRSIs. The interventions investigated in the studies were heterogeneous with most studies testing communication strategies to enhance COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Most studies assessed the willingness to get vaccinated as an outcome. The majority of studies were conducted in English-speaking high-income countries. Moreover, most studies investigated digital interventions in an online setting. Populations that were addressed were diverse. For example, studies targeted healthcare workers, ethnic minorities in the USA, students, soldiers, at-risk patients, or the general population. ONGOING STUDIES Of the 35 ongoing studies, 29 studies are RCTs and six NRSIs. Educational and communication interventions were the most used types of interventions. The majority of ongoing studies plan to assess vaccine uptake as an outcome. Again, the majority of studies are being conducted in English-speaking high-income countries. In contrast to the studies with published results, most ongoing studies will not be conducted online. Addressed populations range from minority populations in the USA to healthcare workers or students. Eleven ongoing studies have estimated completion dates in 2022. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We were able to identify and map a variety of heterogeneous interventions for increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake or decreasing vaccine hesitancy. Our results demonstrate that this is an active field of research with 61 published studies and 35 studies still ongoing. This review gives a comprehensive overview of interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake and can be the foundation for subsequent systematic reviews on the effectiveness of interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake. A research gap was shown for studies conducted in low and middle-income countries and studies investigating policy interventions and improved access, as well as for interventions addressing children and adolescents. As COVID-19 vaccines become more widely available, these populations and interventions should not be neglected in research.We were able to identify and map a variety of heterogeneous interventions for increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake or decreasing vaccine hesitancy. Our results demonstrate that this is an active field of research with 61 published studies and 35 studies still ongoing. This review gives a comprehensive overview of interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake and can be the foundation for subsequent systematic reviews on the effectiveness of interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake. A research gap was shown for studies conducted in low and middle-income countries and studies investigating policy interventions and improved access, as well as for interventions addressing children and adolescents. As COVID-19 vaccines become more widely available, these populations and interventions should not be neglected in research.

Background Myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) is one of the most frequent haematologic malignancies of the elderly population and characterised by progenitor cell dysplasia with ineffective haematopoiesis and a high rate of transformation to acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). Thrombocytopenia represents a common problem for patients with MDS. ranging from mild to serious bleeding events and death. To manage thrombocytopenia, the current standard treatment includes platelet transfusion, unfortunately leading to a range of side effects. Thrombopoietin (TPO) mimetics represent an alternative treatment option for MDS patients with thrombocytopenia. However, it remains unclear, whether TPO mimetics influence the increase of blast cells and therefore to premature progression to AML. Objectives To evaluate the efficacy and safety of thrombopoietin (TPO) mimetics for patients with MDS. Search methods We searched for randomised controlled trials in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (January 2000 to August 2017), trials registries (ISRCTN, EU clinical trials register and clinicaltrials.gov) and conference proceedings. We did not apply any language restrictions. Two review authors independently screened search results, disagreements were solved by discussion. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials comparing TPO mimetics with placebo, no further treatment or another TPO mimetic in patients with MDS of all risk groups, without gender, age or ethnicity restrictions. Additional chemotherapeutic treatment had to be equal in both arms. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of trials, disagreements were resolved by discussion. Risk ratio (RR) was used to analyse mortality during study, transformation to AML, incidence of bleeding events, transfusion requirement, all adverse events, adverse events >= grade 3, serious adverse events and platelet response. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) have been extracted as hazard ratios, but could not be pooled as results were reported in heterogenous ways. Health-related quality of life and duration of thrombocytopenia would have been analysed as standardised mean differences, but no trial reported these outcomes. Main results We did not identify any trial comparing one TPO mimetic versus another. We analysed six eligible trials involving 746 adult patients. All trials were reported as randomised and double-blind trials including male and female patients. Two trials compared TPO mimetics (romiplostim or eltrombopag) with placebo, one trial evaluated eltrombopag in addition to the hypomethylating agent azacitidine, two trials analysed romiplostim additionally to a hypomethylating agent (azacitidine or decitabine) and one trial evaluated romiplostim in addition to the immunomodulatory drug lenalidomide. There are more data on romiplostim (four included, completed, full-text trials) than on eltrombopag (two trials included: one full-text publication, one abstract publication). Due to small sample sizes and imbalances in baseline characteristics in three trials and premature termination of two studies, we judged the potential risk of bias of all included trials as high. Due to heterogenous reporting, we were not able to pool data for OS. Instead of that, we analysed mortality during study. There is little or no evidence for a difference in mortality during study for thrombopoietin mimetics compared to placebo (RR 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.27, N = 6 trials, 746 patients, low-quality evidence). It is unclear whether the use of TPO mimetics induces an acceleration of transformation to AML (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.77, N = 5 trials, 372 patients, very low-quality evidence).Thrombopoietin mimetics probably improve the incidence of all bleeding events (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.99, N = 5 trials, 390 patients, moderate-quality evidence). This means that in the study population, 713 out of 1000 in the placebo arm will have a bleeding event, compared to 656 of 1000 (95% CI 613 to 699) in the TPO mimetics arm. There is little or no evidence for a difference that TPO mimetics significantly diminish the rate of transfusion requirement (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.05, N = 4 trials, 358 patients, low-quality evidence). No studies were found that looked at quality of life or duration of thrombocytopenia. There is no evidence that patients given TPO mimetics suffer more all adverse events (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.07, N = 5 trials, 390 patients, moderate-quality evidence). There is uncertainty whether the number of serious adverse events decrease under therapy with TPO mimetics (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.46, N = 4 trials, 356 patients, very low-quality evidence). We identified one ongoing study and one study marked as completed (March 2015), but without publication of results for MDS patients (only results reported for AML and MDS patients together). Both studies evaluate MDS patients receiving eltrombopag in comparison to placebo. Authors' conclusions No trial evaluated one TPO mimetic versus another. Six trials including adult patients analysed one TPO mimetic versus placebo, sometimes combined with standard therapy in both arms. Given the uncertainty of the quality of evidence, meta-analyses show that there is little or no evidence for a difference in mortality during study and premature progress to AML. However, these assumptions have to be further explored. Treatment with TPO mimetics resulted in a lower number of MDS patients suffering from bleeding events.There is no evidence for a difference between study groups regarding transfusion requirement. Enlarged sample sizes and a longer follow-up of future trials should improve the estimate of safety and efficacy of TPO mimetics, moreover health-related quality of life should be evaluated. As two ongoing studies currently investigate eltrombopag (one already completed, but without published results), we are awaiting results for this drug.

Background There are two different international standards for the treatment of early unfavourable and advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HL): chemotherapy with escalated BEACOPP (bleomycin/etoposide/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide/vincristine/procarbazine/prednisone) regimen and chemotherapy with ABVD (doxorubicin/bleomycin/vinblastine/dacarbazine) regimen. Objectives To determine the advantages and disadvantages of chemotherapy including escalated BEACOPP compared to chemotherapy including ABVD in the treatment of early unfavourable or advanced stage HL as first-line treatment. Search methods We searched for randomised controlled trials in MEDLINE, CENTRAL and conference proceedings (January 1985 to July 2013 and for the update to March 2017) and Embase (1985 to November 2008). Moreover we searched trial registries (March 2017; www.controlled-trials.com, www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search, clinicaltrials.gov, www.eortc.be, www.ghsg.org, www.ctc.usyd.edu.au, www.trialscentral.org/index.html) Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials examining chemotherapy including at least two cycles of escalated BEACOPP regimens compared with chemotherapy including at least four cycles of ABVD regimens as first-line treatment for patients with early unfavourable stage or advanced stage HL. Data collection and analysis The effect measures we used were hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and freedom from first progression. We used risk ratios (RRs) relative risks to analyse harms: treatment-related mortality, secondary malignancies (including myeloid dysplastic syndrome (MDS) or acute myeloid leukaemia (AML)), infertility and adverse events. Quality of life was not reported in any trial, therefore not analysed. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality of trials. Main results We screened 1796 records and identified five eligible trials in total i.e. one trial could be added on the previous review. These trials included only adults (16 to 65 years of age). We included all five trials with 3427 people in the meta-analyses: the HD9 and HD14 trials were co-ordinated in Germany, the HD2000 and GSM-HD trials were performed in Italy and the EORTC 20012 was conducted in Belgium. The overall risk of performance and detection bias was low for overall survival (OS), but was high for other outcomes, as therapy blinding was not feasible. The remaining 'Risk of bias' domains were low and unclear. All trials reported results for OS and progression-free survival (PFS). In contrast to the our first published review (2011) the addition of results from the EORTC 20012 BEACOPP escalated increases OS (3142 participants; HR 0.74 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.97; high-quality evidence). This means that only 90 (70 to 117) patients will die after five years in the BEACOPP escalated arm compared to 120 in the ABVD arm. This survival advantage is also reflected in an increased PFS with BEACOPP escalated (3142 participants; HR 0.54 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.64); moderate-quality evidence), meaning that after five years only 144 (121 to 168) patients will experience a progress, relapse or death in the BEACOPP escalated arm compared to 250 in the ABVD arm. There is no evidence for a difference for treatment-related mortality (2700 participants, RR 2.15 (95% CI = 0.93 to 4.95), low-quality evidence). Although the occurrence of MDS or AML may increase with BEACOPP escalated (3332 participants, RR 3.90 (95% CI 1.36 to 11.21); low-quality evidence)), there is no evidence for a difference between both regimens for overall secondary malignancies (3332 participants, RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.48), low-quality evidence). However, the observation time of the studies included in the review is too short to be expected to demonstrate differences with respect to second solid tumours which would not be expected to show significance until around 15 years after treatment. We are very uncertain how many female patients will be infertile due to chemotherapy and which arm might be favoured (106 participants, RR 1.37 (95% CI 0.83 to 2.26), very low-quality evidence). This is a very small sample, and the age of the patients was not detailed. No analysis of male fertility was provided. Five trials reported adverse events and the analysis shows that the escalated BEACOPP regimens probably causes more haematological toxicities WHO grade III or IV ((anaemia: 2425 participants, RR 10.67 (95% CI 7.14 to 15.93); neutropenia: 519 participants, RR 1.80 (95% CI 1.52 to 2.13); thrombocytopenia: 2425 participants, RR 18.12 (95% CI 11.77 to 27.92); infections: 2425 participants, RR 3.73 (95% CI 2.58 to 5.38), all low-quality evidence). Only one trial (EORTC 20012) planned to assess quality of life, however, no results were reported. Authors' conclusions This meta-analysis provides moderate- to high-quality evidence that adult patients between 16 and 60 years of age with early unfavourable and advanced stage HL benefit regarding OS and PFS from first-line chemotherapy including escalated BEACOPP. The proven benefit in OS for patients with advanced HL is a new finding of this updated review due to the inclusion of the results from the EORTC 20012 trial. Furthermore, there is only low-quality evidence of a difference in the total number of secondary malignancies, as the follow-up period might be too short to detect meaningful differences. Low-quality evidence also suggests that people treated with escalated BEACOPP may have a higher risk to develop secondary AML or MDS. Due to the availability of only very low-quality evidence available, we are unable to come to a conclusion in terms of infertility. This review does for the first time suggest a survival benefit. However, it is clear from this review that BEACOPP escalated may be more toxic that ABVD, and very important long-term side effects of second malignancies and infertility have not been sufficiently analysed yet.

BACKGROUND Febrile neutropenia (FN) and other infectious complications are some of the most serious treatment-related toxicities of chemotherapy for cancer, with a mortality rate of 2% to 21%. The two main types of prophylactic regimens are granulocyte (macrophage) colony-stimulating factors (G(M)-CSF) and antibiotics, frequently quinolones or cotrimoxazole. Current guidelines recommend the use of colony-stimulating factors when the risk of febrile neutropenia is above 20%, but they do not mention the use of antibiotics. However, both regimens have been shown to reduce the incidence of infections. Since no systematic review has compared the two regimens, a systematic review was undertaken. OBJECTIVES To compare the efficacy and safety of G(M)-CSF compared to antibiotics in cancer patients receiving myelotoxic chemotherapy. SEARCH METHODS We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, databases of ongoing trials, and conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology (1980 to December 2015). We planned to include both full-text and abstract publications. Two review authors independently screened search results. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylaxis with G(M)-CSF versus antibiotics for the prevention of infection in cancer patients of all ages receiving chemotherapy. All study arms had to receive identical chemotherapy regimes and other supportive care. We included full-text, abstracts, and unpublished data if sufficient information on study design, participant characteristics, interventions and outcomes was available. We excluded cross-over trials, quasi-randomised trials and post-hoc retrospective trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently screened the results of the search strategies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and analysed data according to standard Cochrane methods. We did final interpretation together with an experienced clinician. MAIN RESULTS In this updated review, we included no new randomised controlled trials. We included two trials in the review, one with 40 breast cancer patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy and G-CSF compared to antibiotics, a second one evaluating 155 patients with small-cell lung cancer receiving GM-CSF or antibiotics.We judge the overall risk of bias as high in the G-CSF trial, as neither patients nor physicians were blinded and not all included patients were analysed as randomised (7 out of 40 patients). We considered the overall risk of bias in the GM-CSF to be moderate, because of the risk of performance bias (neither patients nor personnel were blinded), but low risk of selection and attrition bias.For the trial comparing G-CSF to antibiotics, all cause mortality was not reported. There was no evidence of a difference for infection-related mortality, with zero events in each arm. Microbiologically or clinically documented infections, severe infections, quality of life, and adverse events were not reported. There was no evidence of a difference in frequency of febrile neutropenia (risk ratio (RR) 1.22; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 2.84). The quality of the evidence for the two reported outcomes, infection-related mortality and frequency of febrile neutropenia, was very low, due to the low number of patients evaluated (high imprecision) and the high risk of bias.There was no evidence of a difference in terms of median survival time in the trial comparing GM-CSF and antibiotics. Two-year survival times were 6% (0 to 12%) in both arms (high imprecision, low quality of evidence). There were four toxic deaths in the GM-CSF arm and three in the antibiotics arm (3.8%), without evidence of a difference (RR 1.32; 95% CI 0.30 to 5.69; P = 0.71; low quality of evidence). There were 28% grade III or IV infections in the GM-CSF arm and 18% in the antibiotics arm, without any evidence of a difference (RR 1.55; 95% CI 0.86 to 2.80; P = 0.15, low quality of evidence). There were 5 episodes out of 360 cycles of grade IV infections in the GM-CSF arm and 3 episodes out of 334 cycles in the cotrimoxazole arm (0.8%), with no evidence of a difference (RR 1.55; 95% CI 0.37 to 6.42; P = 0.55; low quality of evidence). There was no significant difference between the two arms for non-haematological toxicities like diarrhoea, stomatitis, infections, neurologic, respiratory, or cardiac adverse events. Grade III and IV thrombopenia occurred significantly more frequently in the GM-CSF arm (60.8%) compared to the antibiotics arm (28.9%); (RR 2.10; 95% CI 1.41 to 3.12; P = 0.0002; low quality of evidence). Neither infection-related mortality, incidence of febrile neutropenia, nor quality of life were reported in this trial. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS As we only found two small trials with 195 patients altogether, no conclusion for clinical practice is possible. More trials are necessary to assess the benefits and harms of G(M)-CSF compared to antibiotics for infection prevention in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

Background Haematological malignancies are malignant neoplasms of the myeloid or lymphatic cell lines including leukaemia, lymphoma and myeloma. In order to manage physical and psychological aspects of the disease and its treatment, complementary therapies like yoga are coming increasingly into focus. However, the effectiveness of yoga practice for people suffering from haematological malignancies remains unclear. Objectives To assess the effects of yoga practice in addition to standard cancer treatment for people with haematological malignancies. Search methods Our search strategy included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1950 to 4th February 2014), databases of ongoing trials (controlled-trials.com; clinicaltrials.gov), conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Society of Hematology, the European Haematology Association, the European Congress for Integrative Medicine, and Global Advances in Health and Medicine. We handsearched references of these studies from identified trials and relevant review articles. Two review authors independently screened the search results. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of yoga in addition to standard care for haematological malignancies compared with standard care only. We did not restrict this to any specific style of yoga. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted data for eligible studies and assessed the risk of bias according to predefined criteria. We evaluated distress, fatigue, anxiety, depression and quality of sleep. Further outcomes we planned to assess were health-related quality of life (HRQoL), overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AE), but data on these were not available. Main results Our search strategies led to 149 potentially relevant references, but only a single small study met our inclusion criteria. The included study was published as a full text article and investigated the feasibility and effect of Tibetan Yoga additional to standard care (N = 20; 1 person dropped out before attending any classes and no data were collected) compared to standard care only (N = 19). The study included people with all stages of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, with and without current cancer treatment. The mean age was 51 years. We judged the overall risk of bias as high as we found a high risk for performance, detection and attrition bias. Additionally, potential outcome reporting bias could not be completely ruled out. Following the recommendations of GRADE, we judged the overall quality of the body of evidence for all predefined outcomes as 'very low', due to the methodical limitations and the very small sample size. The influence of yoga on HRQoL and OS was not reported. There is no evidence that yoga in addition to standard care compared with standard care only can improve distress in people with haematological malignancies (mean difference (MD) -0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.55 to 4.95; P = 0.91). Similarly, there is no evidence of a difference between either group for fatigue (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.94 to 0.94; P = 1.00), anxiety (MD 0.30, 95% CI -5.01 to 5.61; P = 0.91) or depression (MD -0.70, 95% CI -3.21 to 1.81; P = 0.58). There is very low quality evidence that yoga improves the overall quality of sleep (MD -2.30, 95% CI -3.78 to -0.82; P = 0.002). The yoga groups' total score for the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) was 5.8 (± 2.3 SD) and better than the total score (8.1 (± 2.4 SD)) of the control group. A PSQI total score of 0 to 5 indicates good sleep whereas PSQI total score 6 to 21 points towards significant sleep disturbances. The occurrence of AEs was not reported. Authors' conclusions The currently available data provide little information about the effectiveness of yoga interventions for people suffering from haematological malignancies. The finding that yoga may be beneficial for the patients' quality of sleep is based on a very small body of evidence. Therefore, the role of yoga as an additional therapy for haematological malignancies remains unclear. Further high-quality randomised controlled trials with larger numbers of participants are needed to make a definitive statement.

BACKGROUND: Febrile neutropenia (FN) and other infectious complications are some of the most serious treatment‐related toxicities of chemotherapy for cancer, with a mortality rate of 2% to 21%. The two main types of prophylactic regimens are granulocyte (macrophage) colony‐stimulating factors (G(M)‐CSF) and antibiotics, frequently quinolones or cotrimoxazole. Current guidelines recommend the use of colony‐stimulating factors when the risk of febrile neutropenia is above 20%, but they do not mention the use of antibiotics. However, both regimens have been shown to reduce the incidence of infections. Since no systematic review has compared the two regimens, a systematic review was undertaken. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of G(M)‐CSF compared to antibiotics in cancer patients receiving myelotoxic chemotherapy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, databases of ongoing trials, and conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology (1980 to December 2015). We planned to include both full‐text and abstract publications. Two review authors independently screened search results. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylaxis with G(M)‐CSF versus antibiotics for the prevention of infection in cancer patients of all ages receiving chemotherapy. All study arms had to receive identical chemotherapy regimes and other supportive care. We included full‐text, abstracts, and unpublished data if sufficient information on study design, participant characteristics, interventions and outcomes was available. We excluded cross‐over trials, quasi‐randomised trials and post‐hoc retrospective trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the results of the search strategies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and analysed data according to standard Cochrane methods. We did final interpretation together with an experienced clinician. MAIN RESULTS: In this updated review, we included no new randomised controlled trials. We included two trials in the review, one with 40 breast cancer patients receiving high‐dose chemotherapy and G‐CSF compared to antibiotics, a second one evaluating 155 patients with small‐cell lung cancer receiving GM‐CSF or antibiotics. We judge the overall risk of bias as high in the G‐CSF trial, as neither patients nor physicians were blinded and not all included patients were analysed as randomised (7 out of 40 patients). We considered the overall risk of bias in the GM‐CSF to be moderate, because of the risk of performance bias (neither patients nor personnel were blinded), but low risk of selection and attrition bias. For the trial comparing G‐CSF to antibiotics, all cause mortality was not reported. There was no evidence of a difference for infection‐related mortality, with zero events in each arm. Microbiologically or clinically documented infections, severe infections, quality of life, and adverse events were not reported. There was no evidence of a difference in frequency of febrile neutropenia (risk ratio (RR) 1.22; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 2.84). The quality of the evidence for the two reported outcomes, infection‐related mortality and frequency of febrile neutropenia, was very low, due to the low number of patients evaluated (high imprecision) and the high risk of bias. There was no evidence of a difference in terms of median survival time in the trial comparing GM‐CSF and antibiotics. Two‐year survival times were 6% (0 to 12%) in both arms (high imprecision, low quality of evidence). There were four toxic deaths in the GM‐CSF arm and three in the antibiotics arm (3.8%), without evidence of a difference (RR 1.32; 95% CI 0.30 to 5.69; P = 0.71; low quality of evidence). There were 28% grade III or IV infections in the GM‐CSF arm and 18% in the antibiotics arm, without any evidence of a difference (RR 1.55; 95% CI 0.86 to 2.80; P = 0.15, low quality of evidence). There were 5 episodes out of 360 cycles of grade IV infections in the GM‐CSF arm and 3 episodes out of 334 cycles in the cotrimoxazole arm (0.8%), with no evidence of a difference (RR 1.55; 95% CI 0.37 to 6.42; P = 0.55; low quality of evidence). There was no significant difference between the two arms for non‐haematological toxicities like diarrhoea, stomatitis, infections, neurologic, respiratory, or cardiac adverse events. Grade III and IV thrombopenia occurred significantly more frequently in the GM‐CSF arm (60.8%) compared to the antibiotics arm (28.9%); (RR 2.10; 95% CI 1.41 to 3.12; P = 0.0002; low quality of evidence). Neither infection‐related mortality, incidence of febrile neutropenia, nor quality of life were reported in this trial. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: As we only found two small trials with 195 patients altogether, no conclusion for clinical practice is possible. More trials are necessary to assess the benefits and harms of G(M)‐CSF compared to antibiotics for infection prevention in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence and incidence of pain and skeletal complications of metastatic bone disease such as pathologic fractures, spinal cord compression and hypercalcemia is high and an important contributor to morbidity, poor performance status and decreased quality of life. Moreover, pathologic fractures are associated with increased risk of death in people with disseminated malignancies. Therefore, prevention of pain and fractures are important goals in men with prostate cancer at risk for skeletal complications. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of bisphosphonates in men with bone metastases from prostate cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies by electronic search of bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and MEDLINE on 13 July 2017 and trial registries. We handsearched the Proceedings of American Society of Clinical Oncology (to July 2017) and reference lists of all eligible trials identified. This is an update of a review last published in 2006. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled studies comparing the effectiveness of bisphosphonates in men with bone metastases from prostate cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of trials. We defined the proportion of participants with pain response as the primary end point; secondary outcomes were skeletal‐related events, mortality, quality of life, adverse events, analgesic consumption and disease progression. We assessed the quality of the evidence for the main outcomes using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 trials reporting on 4843 participants comparing the effect of bisphosphonate administration to control regimens. Primary outcome: there was no clear difference in the proportion of participants with pain response (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.43; P = 0.20; I(2) = 0%; 3 trials; 876 participants; low quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in a pain response in 40 more participants per 1000 (19 fewer to 114 more). Secondary outcomes: bisphosphonates probably reduced the incidence of skeletal‐related events in participants with prostate cancer metastatic to bone (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.94; P = 0.27; I(2) = 19%; 9 trials; 3153 participants; moderate quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in 58 fewer SREs per 1000 (85 fewer to 27 fewer). We found no clinically relevant differences in mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.04; P = 0.43; I(2) = 1%; 9 trials; 2450 participants; moderate quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in 16 fewer deaths per 1000 (47 fewer to 21 more). Outcome definition of quality of life and the measurement tools varied greatly across trials and we were unable to extract any quantitative data for meta‐analysis. Bisphosphonates probably increased the number of participants affected by nausea (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41; P = 0.05; I(2) = 0%; 9 trials; 3008 participants; moderate quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in seven more cases of nausea per 1000 (0 fewer to 14 more). Bisphosphonates probably increased the number of renal adverse events (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.46; P = 0.01; I(2) = 0%; 7 trials; 1794 participants; moderate quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in 22 more renal adverse events per 1000 (4 more to 50 more). We found no clear difference in the number of participants with osteonecrosis of the jaw between groups (RR 1.92, 95% CI 0.75 to 4.90; P = 0.17; I(2) = 0%; 5 trials; 1626 participants; very low quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in seven more cases with osteonecrosis of the jaw per 1000 (2 fewer to 29 more). We observed no clinically relevant difference in the proportion of participants with decreased analgesic consumption (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.63; P = 0.28; I(2) = 37%; 4 trials; 416 participants). Statistical analysis revealed that bisphosphonates probably reduced the number of participants with disease progression (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.98; P = 0.006; I(2) = 0%; 7 trials; 2115 participants; moderate quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in 36 fewer cases of disease progression per 1000 (71 fewer to 7 fewer). Findings of our predefined subgroup and sensitivity analyses were no different from those of the primary analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on low quality evidence, there may be no clinically relevant difference in the proportion of men with pain response between bisphosphonates and control regimens in men with bone metastases from prostate cancer. Bisphosphonates probably decrease the number of skeletal‐related events and disease progression. These benefits need to be weighed against the increased risk of renal impairment and nausea in men receiving bisphosphonates. Future studies should explicitly evaluate patient important outcomes such as quality of life and pain by using standardized and comparable assessment tools.