Dataset Information

The Efficacy and Safety of Celecoxib in Addition to Standard Cancer Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of celecoxib, a selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor, in addition to standard anticancer therapy. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy and safety of celecoxib-combined cancer therapy were systematically searched in PubMed and Embase databases. The endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), disease-free survival (DFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), pathological complete response (pCR), and adverse events (AEs). The results of 30 RCTs containing 9655 patients showed limited benefits in celecoxib-combined cancer therapy. However, celecoxib-combined palliative therapy prolonged PFS in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) wild-type patients (HR = 0.57, 95%CI = 0.35-0.94). Moreover, despite a slight increase in thrombocytopenia (RR = 1.35, 95%CI = 1.08-1.69), there was no increase in other toxicities. Celecoxib combined with adjuvant therapy indicated a better OS (HR = 0.850, 95%CI = 0.725-0.996). Furthermore, celecoxib plus neoadjuvant therapy improved the ORR in standard cancer therapy, especially neoadjuvant therapy (overall: RR = 1.13, 95%CI = 1.03-1.23; neoadjuvant therapy: RR = 1.25, 95%CI = 1.09-1.44), but not pCR. Our study indicated that adding celecoxib to palliative therapy prolongs the PFS of EGFR wild-type patients, with good safety profiles. Celecoxib combined with adjuvant therapy prolongs OS, and celecoxib plus neoadjuvant therapy improves the ORR. Thus, celecoxib-combined cancer therapy may be a promising therapy strategy.

SUBMITTER: Ye SY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9497539 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Efficacy and Safety of Celecoxib in Addition to Standard Cancer Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Ye Shi-Yu SY Li Jia-Yi JY Li Teng-Hui TH Song Yong-Xi YX Sun Jing-Xu JX Chen Xiao-Wan XW Zhao Jun-Hua JH Li Yuan Y Wu Zhong-Hua ZH Gao Peng P Huang Xuan-Zhang XZ

Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) 20220825 9

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of celecoxib, a selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor, in addition to standard anticancer therapy. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy and safety of celecoxib-combined cancer therapy were systematically searched in PubMed and Embase databases. The endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), disease-free survival (DFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease cont ...[more]

PMID: 36135051

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in the adjuvant cancer therapy setting within different subset of patients.Methods & design/ resultsPubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane and Clinical trials.gov databases were searched for English language studies of randomized controlled trials comparing bevacizumab and adjuvant therapy with adjuvant therapy alone published from January 1966 to 7th of May 2014. Progression free survival, overall survival, overall response rate, safety and quality of life were analyzed using random- or fixed-effects models according to the PRISMA guidelines. We obtained data from 44 randomized controlled trials (30,828 patients). Combining bevacizumab with different adjuvant therapies resulted in significant improvement of progression free survival (log hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.84-0.89), overall survival (log hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.98) and overall response rate (relative risk, 1.46; 95% CI: 1.33-1.59) compared to adjuvant therapy alone in all studied tumor types. In subgroup analyses, there were no interactions of bevacizumab with baseline characteristics on progression free survival and overall survival, while overall response rate was influenced by tumor type and bevacizumab dose (p-value: 0.02). Although bevacizumab use resulted in additional expected adverse drug reactions except anemia and fatigue, it was not associated with a significant decline in quality of life. There was a trend towards a higher risk of several side effects in patients treated by high-dose bevacizumab compared to the low-dose e.g. all grade proteinuria (9.24; 95% CI: 6.60-12.94 vs. 2.64; 95% CI: 1.29-5.40).ConclusionsCombining bevacizumab with different adjuvant therapies provides a survival benefit across all major subsets of patients, including by tumor type, type of adjuvant therapy, and duration and dose of bevacizumab therapy. Though bevacizumab was associated with increased risks of some adverse drug reactions such as hypertension and bleeding, anemia and fatigue were improved by the addition of bevacizumab.

Project description:ObjectEldecalcitol (ED-71) is a vitamin D analog for the treatment of osteoporosis. However, inconsistent results have been reported in this regard. Hence, this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of ED-71 for osteoporosis.MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched to identify potential trials from inception until April 2021. The investigated outcomes included bone mineral density and fractures at various sites, and potential adverse events. The pooled effect estimates were calculated using weighted mean difference (WMD) and relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random-effects model.ResultsEight RCTs involving 2368 patients were selected for the final meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that ED-71 were associated with a higher level of femoral neck (FN) bone mineral density (BMD) (WMD: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.24-1.60; P = 0.008), while it had no significant effect on lumbar spine BMD (WMD: 1.09; 95% CI: -0.11 to 2.30; P = 0.076) and hip BMD (WMD: 1.12; 95% CI: -0.16 to 2.40; P = 0.088). Moreover, the use of ED-71 could protect against the risk of all osteoporotic fracture (RR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.55-0.88; P = 0.003) and vertebral fracture (RR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.55-0.98; P = 0.038), while it did not affect the risk of nonvertebral fracture (RR: 0.53; 95%CI: 0.23-1.23; P = 0.140). The subgroup analyses found that the effects of ED-71 were superior to those of alfacalcidol on both BMD and fracture results. Moreover, the use of ED-71 plus bisphosphonate was associated with a greater improvement in BMD at various sites compared with bisphosphonate alone. Finally, ED-71 was associated with an increased risk of increased urine calcium level (RR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.33-2.15; P < 0.001).ConclusionThis study found that the use of ED-71 could improve BMD and fractures at various sites, especially compared with alfacalcidol or a combination with bisphosphonate for patients with osteoporosis.Systematic review registration[http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero], identifier [CRD42021270536].

Project description:BackgroundRecent lipid guidelines recommend aggressive low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol lowering in patients with coronary artery disease. To clarify the evidence for this recommendation, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared different intensities of statin therapy.MethodsWe searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Registery of Controlled Trials, Web of Science) for randomized controlled trials published up to July 19, 2007, that compared statin regimens of different intensities in adults with coronary artery disease and that reported cardiovascular events or mortality. Data were pooled using random-effects models to calculate odds ratios (OR).ResultsA total of 7 trials (29 395 patients) were included. Compared with less intensive statin regimens, more intensive regimens further reduced LDL levels (0.72 mmol/L reduction, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60-0.84 mmol/L), and reduced the risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77-0.91) and stroke (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71-0.95). Although there was no effect on mortality among patients with chronic coronary artery disease (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.80-1.14), all-cause mortality was reduced among patients with acute coronary syndromes treated with more intensive statin regimens (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93). Compared with lower intensity regimens, more intensive regimens were associated with small absolute increases in rates of drug discontinuation (2.5%), elevated levels of aminotransferases (1%) and myopathy (0.5%), and there was no difference in noncardiovascular mortality. All 7 trials reported events by randomization arm rather than by LDL level achieved. About half of the patients treated with more intensive statin therapy did not achieve an LDL level of less than 2.0 mmol/L, and none of the trials tested combination therapies.InterpretationOur analysis supports the use of more intensive statin regimens in patients with established coronary artery disease. There is insufficient evidence to advocate treating to particular LDL targets, using combination lipid-lowering therapy to achieve these targets or for using more intensive regimens in patients without established coronary artery disease.

Dataset Information

The Efficacy and Safety of Celecoxib in Addition to Standard Cancer Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Publications

The Efficacy and Safety of Celecoxib in Addition to Standard Cancer Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets