Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor biosimilars for neovascular age-related macular degeneration.

RATIONALE: Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a progressive eye disease characterized by choroidal neovascularization (CNV) and is a leading cause of vision loss and disability worldwide. Although intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy is an effective treatment option that helps to prevent vision loss or to improve visual acuity in people with neovascular AMD, treatment imposes a significant financial burden on patients and healthcare systems. A biosimilar is a biological product that has been developed to be nearly identical to a previously approved biological product. The use of biosimilars may help reduce costs and so may increase patient access to effective biologic medicines with similar levels of safety to the drugs on which they are based. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of anti-VEGF biosimilar agents compared with their corresponding anti-VEGF agents (i.e. the reference products) that have obtained regulatory approval for intravitreal injections in people with neovascular AMD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and two trials registries together with reference checking and contact with study authors to identify studies that are included in the review. The latest search date was 2 June 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared approved anti-VEGF biosimilars with their reference products for treating the eyes of adult participants (≥ 50 years) who had an active primary or recurrent choroidal neovascularization lesion secondary to neovascular AMD. OUTCOMES: Our outcomes were: best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central subfield thickness (CST), vision-related quality of life, serious ocular and non-ocular adverse events (AE), treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), anti-drug antibodies (ADAs), and serum concentrations of biosimilars and reference drugs. RISK OF BIAS: We assessed the risk of bias (RoB) for seven outcomes reported in a summary of findings table by using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We synthesized results for each outcome using meta-analysis, where possible, by calculating risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and continuous outcomes, respectively. Where this was not possible due to the nature of the data, we summarized the results narratively. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for prespecified outcomes. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included nine parallel-group multi-center RCTs that enrolled a total of 3814 participants (3814 participating eyes), with sample sizes that ranged from 160 to 705 participants per study. The mean age of the participants in these studies ranged from 67 to 76 years, and the proportion of women ranged from 26.5% to 58.7%. Ranibizumab (Lucentis) was the reference product in seven studies, and aflibercept (Eyelea) was the reference product in two others. All the included studies had been supported by industry. The follow-up periods ranged from 12 to 52 weeks (median 48 weeks). Five studies (56%) were conducted in multi-country settings across Europe, North America and Asia, two studies in India, and one each in Japan and the Republic of Korea. We judged all the included studies to have met high methodological standards. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: With regard to efficacy, our meta-analyses demonstrated that anti-VEGF biosimilars for neovascular AMD resulted in little to no difference compared with the reference products for BCVA change at 8 to 12 weeks (MD -0.55 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters, 95% CI -1.17 to 0.07; 8 studies, 3603 participants; high-certainty evidence) and the proportion of participants who lost fewer than 15 letters in BCVA at 24 to 48 weeks (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01; 7 studies, 2658 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Almost all participants (96.6% in the biosimilar group and 97.0% in the reference product group) lost fewer than 15 letters in BCVA. The evidence from two studies suggested that there was no evidence of difference between biosimilars and reference products in vision-related quality of life measured by the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25) summary scores at 24 to 48 weeks (MD 0.82, 95% CI -0.70 to 2.35; 2 studies, 894 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). With regard to the safety profile, meta-analyses also revealed little to no difference between anti-VEGF biosimilars and the reference products for the proportion of participants who experienced serious ocular AEs (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.26; 7 studies, 3292 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and for TEAEs leading to investigational product discontinuation or death (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.46; 8 studies, 3497 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Overall, 1.4% of participants in the biosimilar group and 1.2% in the reference product group experienced serious ocular adverse events. The most frequently documented serious ocular AEs were retinal hemorrhage and endophthalmitis. Although the evidence is of low certainty due to imprecision, meta-analysis suggested that anti-VEGF biosimilars led to no difference compared with the reference products for cumulative incidence of ADAs (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.22; 8 studies, 3066 participants; low-certainty evidence) or mean maximum serum concentrations (MD 0.42 ng/mL, 95% CI -0.22 to 1.05; subgroup of 3 studies, 100 participants; low-certainty evidence). We judged the overall risk of bias to be low for all studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In our review, low to high certainty evidence suggests that there is little to no difference, to date, between the anti-VEGF biosimilars approved for treating neovascular AMD and their reference products in terms of benefits and harms. While anti-VEGF biosimilars may be a viable alternative to reference products, current evidence for their use is based on a limited number of studies - particularly for comparison with aflibercept - with sparse long-term safety data, and infrequent assessment of quality of life outcomes. Our effect estimates and conclusions may be modified once findings have been reported from studies that are currently ongoing, and studies of biosimilar agents that are currently in development. FUNDING: Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Project is supported by grant UG1EY020522, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health. Takeshi Hasegawa and Hisashi Noma were supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (Grant numbers: 22H03554, 19K03092, 24K06239). REGISTRATION: Protocol available via doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015804.

Efficacy of carbapenems and alternative antimicrobials for treating complicated urinary tract infections caused by third-generation cephalosporin-resistant gram-negative bacteria: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Specific data concerning the efficacy of alternative antibiotics for carbapenems against complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs) attributed to antimicrobial-resistant (AMR) uropathogens are lacking. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the efficacy of carbapenems and non-carbapenem antibiotics in the clinical outcomes of cUTIs caused by AMR uropathogens. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, databases, including MEDLINE/PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase and ClinicalTrials.gov, were searched. The study eligibility criteria were research articles conducted as randomised controlled trials that evaluated the composite outcomes of cUTIs. Participants were adult patients with cUTIs caused by gram-negative uropathogens resistant to third-generation cephalosporins. The intervention involved a non-carbapenem class of antimicrobial agents with in vitro activities against gram-negative uropathogens resistant to third-generation cephalosporins. Two independent researchers assessed the risk-of-bias using the second version of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials. The treatment effects on each outcome were estimated as a risk ratio (RR) with a 95 % confidence interval (CI) using the random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochrane Q-test and I2 statistics. RESULTS: Through database searches, 955 articles were retrieved. After screening the titles and abstracts, 52 articles were screened in full text. Finally, 12 studies met the inclusion criteria. No significant differences in efficacy were observed between alternative antibiotics and carbapenems (composite outcome, RR, 0.96; 95 % CI, 0.63-1.49; I2 = 21 %; low certainty of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: Alternative antibiotics had clinical efficacy similar to that of carbapenems for treating patients with cUTI caused by gram-negative uropathogens resistant to third-generation cephalosporins.

Efficacy and safety of drug therapy for the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is one of the most common dose-limiting side effects of chemotherapeutic drugs. Numerous clinical trials of various targeted drugs for the prevention or treatment of CIPN have been conducted; however, previous systematic reviews with direct comparisons have failed to demonstrate the efficacy of these drugs in the prevention or treatment of CIPN. In addition, no systematic reviews have indirectly compared CIPN prevention and treatment. This article describes a protocol for evaluating the efficacy and safety of drug therapy for the prevention and treatment of CIPN. The results of the proposed systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA) will provide new insights into the prevention and treatment of CIPN. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a literature search in MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov to find relevant articles published through January 2023. We will include studies that investigated the efficacy and safety of vitamin B12, goshajinkigan, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory analgesics, opioids, calcium and magnesium, antidepressants and anticonvulsants on CIPN. Two authors will individually screen the retrieved reports and review the full text based on the selection criteria. The primary outcome is the incidence and severity of CIPN. The risk of bias will be assessed using V.2.0 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We will apply a frequentist random-effects NMA model to pool effect sizes across trials using risk ratios and mean differences with their 95% CIs. Competing interventions will be ranked using the surface under cumulative ranking probabilities. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the heterogeneity variance τ2, Cochran's Q test and I² statistic. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review does not require ethical approval. The research will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022371829.

Prognostic model for overall survival that includes the combination of platelet count and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio within the first six weeks of sunitinib treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The association between the combination of platelet count and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (COP-NLR) at the time of adverse events during sunitinib treatment and prognosis is unclear, and prognostic models combining the prognostic factors of sunitinib have not been well studied. Thus, we developed a prognostic model that includes the COP-NLR to predict the prognosis of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with sunitinib. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 102 patients treated with sunitinib for mRCC between 2008 and 2020 in three hospitals associated with Showa University, Japan. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). The collected data included baseline patient characteristics, adverse events, laboratory values, and COP-NLR scores within the first 6 weeks of sunitinib treatment. Prognostic factors of OS were analyzed using the Cox proportional hazards model. The integer score was derived from the beta-coefficient (ß) of these factors and was divided into three groups. The survival curves were visualized using the Kaplan-Meier method and estimated using a log-rank test. RESULTS: The median OS was 32.3 months. Multivariable analysis showed that the number of metastatic sites, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk group, number of metastases, non-hypertension, modified Glasgow Prognostic Score, and 6-week COP-NLR were significantly associated with OS. A higher 6-week COP-NLR was significantly associated with a shorter OS (p < 0.001). The ß values of the five factors for OS were scored (non-hypertension, mGPS, and 6-week COP-NLR = 1 point; number of metastatic sites = 2 points; MSKCC risk group = 3 points) and patients divided into three groups (≤ 1, 2-3, and ≥ 4). The low-risk (≤ 1) group had significantly longer OS than the high-risk (≥ 4) group (median OS: 99.0 vs. 6.2 months, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the COP-NLR within the first 6 weeks of sunitinib treatment had a greater impact on OS than the COP-NLR at the start of sunitinib treatment. The developed prognostic model for OS, including the 6-week COP-NLR, will be useful in decision-making to continue sunitinib in the early treatment stage of patients with mRCC.