Search

Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common type of liver cancer, accounting for 70% to 85% of individuals with primary liver cancer. Gene therapy, which uses genes to treat or prevent diseases, holds potential for treatment, especially for tumours. Trials on the effects of gene therapy in people with hepatocellular carcinoma have been published or are ongoing., Objectives: To evaluate the benefits and harms of gene therapy in people with hepatocellular carcinoma, irrespective of sex, administered dose, and type of formulation., Search Methods: We identified randomised clinical trials through electronic searches in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science. We searched five online clinical trial registries to identify unpublished or ongoing trials. We checked reference lists of the retrieved studies for further trials. The date of last search was 20 January 2023., Selection Criteria: We aimed to include randomised clinical trials assessing any type of gene therapy in people diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma, irrespective of year, language of publication, format, or outcomes reported., Data Collection and Analysis: We followed Cochrane methodology and used Review Manager to prepare the review. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality/overall survival (whatever data were provided), serious adverse events during treatment, and health-related quality of life. The secondary outcomes were proportion of people with disease progression, adverse events considered non-serious, and proportion of people without improvement in liver function tests. We assessed risk of bias of the included trials using RoB 2 and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We presented the results of time-to-event outcomes as hazard ratios (HR), dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR), and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Our primary analyses were based on intention-to-treat and outcome data at the longest follow-up., Main Results: We included six randomised clinical trials with 364 participants. The participants had unresectable (i.e. advanced inoperable) hepatocellular carcinoma. We found no trials assessing the effects of gene therapy in people with operable hepatocellular carcinoma. Four trials were conducted in China, one in several countries (from North America, Asia, and Europe), and one in Egypt. The number of participants in the six trials ranged from 10 to 129 (median 47), median age was 55.2 years, and the mean proportion of males was 72.7%. The follow-up duration ranged from six months to five years. As the trials compared different types of gene therapy and had different controls, we could not perform meta-analyses. Five of the six trials administered co-interventions equally to the experimental and control groups. All trials assessed one or more outcomes of interest in this review. The certainty of evidence was very low in five of the six comparisons and low in the double-dose gene therapy comparison. Below, we reported the results of the primary outcomes only. Pexastimogene devacirepvec (Pexa-Vec) plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone There is uncertainty about whether there may be little to no difference between the effect of Pexa-Vec plus best supportive care compared with best supportive care alone on overall survival (HR 1.19, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.82; 1 trial (censored observation at 20-month follow-up), 129 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and on serious adverse events (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.33; 1 trial at 20 months after treatment, 129 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The trial reported quality of life narratively as "assessment of quality of life and time to symptomatic progression was confounded by the high patient dropout rate." Adenovirus-thymidine kinase with ganciclovir (ADV-TK/GCV) plus liver transplantation versus liver transplantation alone There is uncertainty about whether ADV-TK/GCV plus liver transplantation may benefit all-cause mortality at the two-year follow-up (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.76; 1 trial, 45 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report serious adverse events other than mortality or quality of life. Double-dose ADV-TK/GCV plus liver transplantation versus liver transplantation alone There is uncertainty about whether double-dose ADV-TK/GCV plus liver transplantation versus liver transplantation may benefit all-cause mortality at five-year follow-up (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.73; 1 trial, 86 participants; low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report serious adverse events other than mortality or quality of life. Recombinant human adenovirus-p53 with hydroxycamptothecin (rAd-p53/HCT) versus hydroxycamptothecin alone There is uncertainty about whether there may be little to no difference between the effect of rAd-p53/HCT versus hydroxycamptothecin alone on the overall survival at 12-month follow-up (RR 3.06, 95% CI 0.16 to 60.47; 1 trial, 48 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report serious adverse events or quality of life. rAd-p53/5-Fu (5-fluorouracil) plus transarterial chemoembolisation versus transarterial chemoembolisation alone The trial included 46 participants. We had insufficient data to assess overall survival. The trial did not report serious adverse events or quality of life. E1B-deleted (dl1520) adenovirus versus percutaneous ethanol injection The trial included 10 participants. It did not report data on overall survival, serious adverse events, or health-related quality of life. One trial did not provide any information on sponsorship; one trial received a national research grant, one trial by the Pedersen foundation, and three were industry-funded trials. We found five ongoing randomised clinical trials., Authors' Conclusions: The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of gene therapy on the studied outcomes because of high risk of bias and imprecision of outcome results. The trials were underpowered and lacked trial data on clinically important outcomes. There was only one trial per comparison, and we could not perform meta-analyses. Therefore, we do not know if gene therapy may reduce, increase, or have little to no effect on all-cause mortality or overall survival, or serious adverse events in adults with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. The impact of gene therapy on adverse events needs to be investigated further. Evidence on the effect of gene therapy on health-related quality of life is lacking., (Copyright © 2024 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objectives: This systematic review with meta-analyses of randomised trials evaluated the preventive effects of vitamin A supplements versus placebo or no intervention on clinically important outcomes, in people of any age., Methods: We searched different electronic databases and other resources for randomised clinical trials that had compared vitamin A supplements versus placebo or no intervention (last search 16 April 2024). We used Cochrane methodology. We used the random-effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs), with 95% CIs. We analysed individually and cluster randomised trials separately. Our primary outcomes were mortality, adverse events and quality of life. We assessed risks of bias in the trials and used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence., Results: We included 120 randomised trials (1 671 672 participants); 105 trials allocated individuals and 15 allocated clusters. 92 trials included children (78 individually; 14 cluster randomised) and 28 adults (27 individually; 1 cluster randomised). 14/105 individually randomised trials (13%) and none of the cluster randomised trials were at overall low risk of bias. Vitamin A did not reduce mortality in individually randomised trials (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.05; I ² =32%; p=0.19; 105 trials; moderate certainty), and this effect was not affected by the risk of bias. In individually randomised trials, vitamin A had no effect on mortality in children (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.04; I ² =24%; p=0.28; 78 trials, 178 094 participants) nor in adults (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.13; I ² =24%; p=0.27; 27 trials, 61 880 participants). Vitamin A reduced mortality in the cluster randomised trials (0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.93; I ² =66%; p=0.0008; 15 trials, 14 in children and 1 in adults; 364 343 participants; very low certainty). No trial reported serious adverse events or quality of life. Vitamin A slightly increased bulging fontanelle of neonates and infants. We are uncertain whether vitamin A influences blindness under the conditions examined., Conclusions: Based on moderate certainty of evidence, vitamin A had no effect on mortality in the individually randomised trials. Very low certainty evidence obtained from cluster randomised trials suggested a beneficial effect of vitamin A on mortality. If preventive vitamin A programmes are to be continued, supporting evidence should come from randomised trials allocating individuals and assessing patient-meaningful outcomes., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42018104347., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Surgical trials evaluating multiple interventions can be carried out by using parallel or factorial trial design. The optimal trial method has not been established., Methods: Trials involving interventions to facilitate day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy have been chosen to illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of these two trials designs., Results and Conclusions: The parallel trial design is simple to design and interpret, but requires multiple randomized controlled trials to assess multiple interventions. It does not detect interactions between the interventions. Factorial trial design allows reduction in overall sample size and allows for exploration of interactions. However, it is not suitable when interventions are mutually exclusive, and it is associated with a higher risk of type I and type II statistical errors. Increased sample size is required in trials in which there are group interactions, which are present in a small proportion of the interventions. Both parallel trial design and factorial trial design have their advantages and disadvantages in the assessment of multiple interventions that can be applied in conjunction. Modifications to the factorial trial design appear to overcome many of the shortcomings of factorial trial design but require further increase in sample size to decrease type I and type II errors. In practice, the choice of trial design for multiple surgical interventions depends on the potential costs of type I and type II errors and the risk of missing important antagonistic and negative interactions., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with low risk of bias is considered the highest level of evidence available for evaluating an intervention. Bias in RCTs may overestimate or underestimate the true effectiveness of an intervention., Methods: The causes of bias in surgical trials as described by The Cochrane Collaboration, and the methods that can be used to avoid them, are reviewed., Results: Blinding is difficult in many surgical trials but careful trial design can reduce the bias risk due to lack of blinding. It is possible to conduct surgical trials with low risk of bias by using appropriate trial design., Conclusion: The risk of providing a treatment based on a biased effect estimate must be balanced against the difficulty of conducting trials with very low risk of bias. Better understanding of the risk of bias may result in improved trials with a closer estimate of the true effectiveness of an intervention., ((c) 2009 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Context: Antioxidant supplements are used for prevention of several diseases., Objective: To assess the effect of antioxidant supplements on mortality in randomized primary and secondary prevention trials. DATA SOURCES AND TRIAL SELECTION: We searched electronic databases and bibliographies published by October 2005. All randomized trials involving adults comparing beta carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C (ascorbic acid), vitamin E, and selenium either singly or combined vs placebo or vs no intervention were included in our analysis. Randomization, blinding, and follow-up were considered markers of bias in the included trials. The effect of antioxidant supplements on all-cause mortality was analyzed with random-effects meta-analyses and reported as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Meta-regression was used to assess the effect of covariates across the trials., Data Extraction: We included 68 randomized trials with 232 606 participants (385 publications)., Data Synthesis: When all low- and high-bias risk trials of antioxidant supplements were pooled together there was no significant effect on mortality (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.98-1.06). Multivariate meta-regression analyses showed that low-bias risk trials (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04[corrected]-1.29) and selenium (RR, 0.998; 95% CI, 0.997-0.9995) were significantly associated with mortality. In 47 low-bias trials with 180 938 participants, the antioxidant supplements significantly increased mortality (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08). In low-bias risk trials, after exclusion of selenium trials, beta carotene (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11), vitamin A (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.10-1.24), and vitamin E (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.07), singly or combined, significantly increased mortality. Vitamin C and selenium had no significant effect on mortality., Conclusions: Treatment with beta carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E may increase mortality. The potential roles of vitamin C and selenium on mortality need further study.

Evidence shows that the quality of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) affects estimates of intervention efficacy, which is significantly exaggerated in low-quality trials. The present study examines the quality of all 235 RCTs published in HEPATOLOGY from the initiation in 1981 through August 1998. Quality was assessed by means of a validated 5-point scale and separate quality components associated with empirical evidence of bias. Only 26% of all RCTs reported sample size calculations, 52% adequate generation of the allocation sequence, 34% adequate allocation concealment and 34% double-blinding. The median quality score of all trials was 3 points (range, 1-5 points). Multiple logistic regression analysis explored the association between quality and therapeutic areas, number of centers, external funding, year of publication, and country of origin. High-quality trials were most likely to investigate portal hypertension (odds ratio [OR]: 2.4; 95% CI: 1.1-5.5; P =.03), be multicentered (OR: 3.4; 95% CI: 1.3-8.9; P =.01), sponsored by public organizations (OR: 4.2; 95% CI: 2.1-8.6; P =.0001), or the drug and device industry (OR: 4.7; 95% CI: 2.2-10.2; P =.0001) compared with other therapeutic areas, single-center trials, and trials with no external funding. Quality did not improve with time and was not associated with country of origin. The main conclusions are that the quality of RCTs in HEPATOLOGY needs improvement and that the probability of high quality increased with the number of centers involved and external funding.

Background/aims: Electronic searches on databases for randomised clinical trials and controlled clinical trials do not identify as many trials as handsearches, and trial reporting may be flawed. The aims were to identify all fully reported randomised clinical trials in the Journal of Hepatology and to make a qualitative assessment of the reporting., Methods: The publications were identified by systematically handsearching the full text of the journal and searching MEDLINE. Central dimensions of trial quality were used to assess the reporting quality of the trials., Results: Randomised clinical trials represented 8.4% of the original articles (171/2028). Ten original articles (0.5%) could not be classified. A search on MEDLINE identified 81.3% of the randomised clinical trials, i.e., 139 out of the 171 identified by the handsearch. A total of 166 randomised clinical trials could be quality assessed. Forty-seven (28.3%) of them reported adequate generation of allocation sequence; 22 (13.3%) adequate allocation concealment; 95 (57.2%) allowed intention-to-treat analysis with only a few losses to follow-up; 50 (30.1%) were double-blind; 33 (19.9%) reported sample-size calculations; 13 trials (7.8%) employed the crossover design; and the median number of subjects per intervention arm in parallel group trials was 19 subjects (interquartile range: 11-31; range: 5-519). The quality of reporting was significantly better in regular issue articles than in supplement articles., Conclusions: Many important randomised clinical trials are published in the Journal of Hepatology, but there seems to be ample room for improvement of quality of reporting.