Search

The objective of this study was to conduct an indirect treatment comparison between cabazitaxel, abiraterone and enzalutamide to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of cabazitaxel relative to comparators in the treatment of patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer who progress on docetaxel-based therapies.A systematic literature review was conducted to inform the network meta-analysis of cabazitaxel, abiraterone and enzalutamide. Due to a lack of head-to-head trials, studies with a comparator arm of best supportive care were included in the analysis. Overall survival, progression-free survival, and adverse events were compared within both Bayesian and Frequentist frameworks. The ratios for survival outcomes were estimated using hazard ratios (HR), and the ratios for adverse events between groups were estimated using odds ratios (ORs); uncertainty was reported as 95% confidence (Frequentist) and credible (Baysesian) Intervals.Three of thirteen trials identified for abstraction were relevant for analyses. Median overall survival was not statistically significantly different for abiraterone (HR = 1.04; 95% CI = 0.83-1.28) or enzalutamide (HR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.69-1.11) when compared to cabazitaxel in the Bayesian analysis. Anaemia (OR = 3.71; 95% CI = 1.01-10.44), diarrhoea (OR = 16.60; 95% CI = 1.41-75.31) and haematuria (OR = 3.88; 95% CI = 1.03-10.09) were more likely to occur in the cabazitaxel group than the abiraterone group, while pyrexia risk was higher in cabazitaxel compared to enzalutamide (OR = 36.23; 95% CI = 1.14-206.40). Frequentist analyses produced similar results.The scarcity of clinical studies and lack of a common comparator limited analyses. The adverse event results must be interpreted with caution as many were based on small numbers. The results from this analysis indicate comparable survival outcomes and adverse event profiles. As these pivotal studies may not reflect the contemporary treatment landscape and patient profiles, additional research, including head-to-head clinical trials and real world observational studies, should be conducted to further elucidate the beneficial effects of these therapies.

Subjective memory complaints are common with aging. Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA; 22:6 n-3) is a long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid (LCPUFA) and an integral part of neural membrane phospholipids that impacts brain structure and function. Past research demonstrates a positive association between DHA plasma status/dietary intake and cognitive function.The current meta-analysis was designed to determine the effect of DHA intake, alone or combined with eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA; 20:5 n-3), on specific memory domains: episodic, working, and semantic in healthy adults aged 18 years and older. A secondary objective was to systematically review/summarize the related observational epidemiologic literature.A systematic literature search of clinical trials and observational studies that examined the relationship between n-3 LCPUFA on memory outcomes in healthy adults was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Studies of subjects free of neurologic disease at baseline, with or without mild memory complaints (MMC), were included. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted to generate weighted group mean differences, standardized weighted group mean differences (Hedge's g), z-scores, and p-values for heterogeneity comparing DHA/EPA to a placebo. A priori sub-group analyses were conducted to evaluate the effect of age at enrollment, dose level, and memory type tested.Episodic memory outcomes of adults with MMC were significantly (P 1 g/day DHA/EPA improved episodic memory (P