Search

The present study is an overview of systematic reviews focusing on adverse events of antimyeloma treatments. It provides a systematic description of adverse events as they are reported in the systematic reviews as well as a critical appraisal of included reviews. We conducted a comprehensive literature search in the most widely used electronic databases looking for systematic reviews that had an adverse event of an antimyeloma treatment intervention as primary outcome. Two independent reviewers conducted selection of included studies and data extraction on predesigned online forms and assessed study quality using AMSTAR 2. Overall corrected covered area (CCA) was calculated to examine the overlap of primary studies across systematic reviews. After screening eligible studies, 23 systematic reviews were included in this overview. Seven reviews with overall CCA of 14.7% examined cardiovascular adverse events of different drugs, including immunomodulatory drugs and proteasome inhibitors (mainly carfilzomib). Nine focused on infections, presenting with overall CCA of 5.8%, each one focused on a different drug or drug class. Three studied thromboembolism in patients treated either with lenalidomide, any immunomodulatory drug, or with daratumumab and had an overall CCA equal to 1.5%. Four more reviews focused on bortezomib-associated neurotoxicity, carfilzomib-associated renal toxicity, or second primary malignancies as an adverse event of lenalidomide or anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody treatment. The quality of included studies as judged by AMSTAR 2 was mostly critically low. Absence of a priori registered protocol and formal assessment of risk of bias of included primary studies were the most common shortcomings. Reporting of antimyeloma drug-associated toxicity is supported by multiple systematic reviews; nevertheless, methodological quality of existing reviews is mostly low. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims/hypothesis: We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of s.c. administered tirzepatide vs s.c. administered semaglutide for adults of both sexes with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods: We searched PubMed and Cochrane up to 11 November 2023 for RCTs with an intervention duration of at least 12 weeks assessing s.c. tirzepatide at maintenance doses of 5 mg, 10 mg or 15 mg once weekly, or s.c. semaglutide at maintenance doses of 0.5 mg, 1.0 mg or 2.0 mg once weekly, in adults with type 2 diabetes, regardless of background glucose-lowering treatment. Eligible trials compared any of the specified doses of tirzepatide and semaglutide against each other, placebo or other glucose-lowering drugs. Primary outcomes were changes in HbA1c and body weight from baseline. Secondary outcomes were achievement of HbA1c target of ≤48 mmol/mol (≤6.5%) or <53 mmol/mol (<7.0%), body weight loss of at least 10%, and safety outcomes including gastrointestinal adverse events and severe hypoglycaemia. We used version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (ROB 2) to assess the risk of bias, conducted frequentist random-effects network meta-analyses and evaluated confidence in effect estimates utilising the Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) framework. Results: A total of 28 trials with 23,622 participants (44.2% female) were included. Compared with placebo, tirzepatide 15 mg was the most efficacious treatment in reducing HbA1c (mean difference −21.61 mmol/mol [−1.96%]) followed by tirzepatide 10 mg (−20.19 mmol/mol [−1.84%]), semaglutide 2.0 mg (−17.74 mmol/mol [−1.59%]), tirzepatide 5 mg (−17.60 mmol/mol [−1.60%]), semaglutide 1.0 mg (−15.25 mmol/mol [−1.39%]) and semaglutide 0.5 mg (−12.00 mmol/mol [−1.09%]). In between-drug comparisons, all tirzepatide doses were comparable with semaglutide 2.0 mg and superior to semaglutide 1.0 mg and 0.5 mg. Compared with placebo, tirzepatide was more efficacious than semaglutide for reducing body weight, with reductions ranging from 9.57 kg (tirzepatide 15 mg) to 5.27 kg (tirzepatide 5 mg). Semaglutide had a less pronounced effect, with reductions ranging from 4.97 kg (semaglutide 2.0 mg) to 2.52 kg (semaglutide 0.5 mg). In between-drug comparisons, tirzepatide 15 mg, 10 mg and 5 mg demonstrated greater efficacy than semaglutide 2.0 mg, 1.0 mg and 0.5 mg, respectively. Both drugs increased incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events compared with placebo, while neither tirzepatide nor semaglutide increased the risk of serious adverse events or severe hypoglycaemia. Conclusions/interpretation: Our data show that s.c. tirzepatide had a more pronounced effect on HbA1c and weight reduction compared with s.c. semaglutide in people with type 2 diabetes. Both drugs, particularly higher doses of tirzepatide, increased gastrointestinal adverse events. Registration: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42022382594 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In selected cases of post-bariatric leaks and fistulas, endoscopy is an initial treatment modality. Management can be complex and require multiple endoscopic sessions with varying degrees of success. Our aim was to describe our tertiary care experience on endoscopy management of refractory post-bariatric leaks and fistulas.Methods: Patients with post-bariatric leaks and/or fistulas who failed an initial endoscopic intervention were included. Endoscopic treatments were classified into four strategies: (1) closure management, (2) active drainage, (3) passive drainage, and (4) plugging. Clinical success and adverse events were assessed.Results: A total of 25 patients (mean age = 45.3 ± 11.8 years and 56% female) were included. Clinical success was achieved in 20 patients (80%) with a mean of 3.0 ± 1.5 procedures and a median time to healing of 114.5 (53-210.3) days. Closure and plugging were the main successful strategies used for early and acute leaks/fistulas, while drainage was for late and chronic leaks/fistulas. Adverse events were observed in 13 patients (52%) with one serious adverse event. Patients with fistulas had a lower success rate (72.2% vs. 100%, P = 0.052). Of those with clinical failure (n = 5), four underwent reconstructive surgery, eventually led to success in 3 patients. The other one died of septic shock related to a complicated fistula.Conclusions: Complex multi-modality endoscopic management ultimately achieved clinical success in most cases of refractory leaks/fistulas post-bariatric with an acceptable safety profile. However, a close follow-up to detect the development of long-term failure is warranted. These patients should be referred to a specialized bariatric center with expertise in bariatric endoscopy and surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, another type of RCTs, non-inferiority trials (NITs), has become prevalent in the medical literature.[1]-[4] Contrary to superiority trials, NITs try to answer whether a treatment is no worse than the control treatment by a predefined non-inferiority margin. We conducted a sensitivity analysis by excluding NITs with primary outcomes same to those used in meta-analyses because the hypothesis testing and, thus, the interpretation of the results are different between NITs and superiority trials. None of them specifically stated to include NITs; none reported or used different methods to extract or pool NITs with superiority trials; and none reported or conducted subgroup analyses by NITs and/or superiority trials. Since the hypothesis for studying secondary outcomes in NITs, in almost all of the cases, is a superiority one, we believe that current approaches for data extraction, analysis, and reporting used in meta-analyses for superiority trials are also appropriate for those secondary outcomes in NITs. [Extracted from the article]