Citations

AbstractMantle cell lymphoma is characterized by relapse and progressive disease, despite initial response to chemoimmunotherapy. We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis to determine the efficacy of rituximab maintenance (RM) therapy in patients with mantle cell lymphoma. We searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from database inception through November 1, 2017. Only full‐text articles were included. Prespecified data elements were extracted from each trial. Outcomes of interest included progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The overall effect was pooled using the Der Simonian‐Laird random effects model. Three randomized controlled trials and four observational studies met our inclusion criteria and were identified in the analyses. Six studies compared RM therapy to observation, and one compared RM therapy to interferon alfa. Meta‐analysis evaluating outcomes of patients treated after ASCT revealed that RM improved for both PFS (HR = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.23‐0.49) and OS (HR of death = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.17‐0.69). A second meta‐analysis of studies evaluating outcomes of patients who are ASCT‐ineligible treated with anthracycline‐based induction therapy revealed that RM improved PFS (HR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.25‐0.58). There is a paucity of data on the role of RM in ASCT‐ineligible patients and those with relapsed disease. Overall, RM therapy appears to improve PFS and OS in previously untreated patients with mantle cell lymphoma who undergo induction chemoimmunotherapy followed by ASCT.

AbstractBackground & AimsAcute liver failure caused by hepatitis E virus genotype 3 and 4 has been rarely described. Because of the presence of a short golden therapeutic window in patients with viral acute liver failure from other causes, it is possible that early recognition and treatment might reduce the morbidity and mortality. We performed a systematic review and pooled analysis of acute liver failure caused by hepatitis E virus genotype 3 and 4.MethodsTwo reviewers appraised studies after searching multiple databases on June 12th, 2017. Appropriate tests were used to compare hepatitis E virus genotype 3 vs 4, suspected vs confirmed genotypes, hepatitis E virus‐RNA positive vs negative, and to discern important mortality risk factors.ResultsWe identified 65 patients, with median age 58 years (range: 3‐79), and a male to female ratio of 1.2:1. The median bilirubin, ALT, AST and alkaline phosphatase (expressed by multiplication of the upper limit of normal) levels were 14.8, 45.3, 34.8 and 1.63 respectively. Antihepatitis E virus IgG, antihepatitis E virus IgM and hepatitis E virus‐RNA were positive in 84%, 91% and 86% of patients respectively. The median interval from symptoms onset to acute liver failure was 23 days, and 16 patients underwent liver transplantation. Final outcome was reported in 58 patients and mortality was 46%. Age was a predictor of poor prognosis in multivariate analysis. No important differences were found between patients infected with genotype 3 vs 4, patients with confirmed vs suspected genotypes, or patients with positive vs negative RNA.ConclusionAcute liver failure caused by hepatitis E virus genotype 3 and 4 is rare, similar between genotypes, occurs commonly in middle‐aged/elderly patients and has a very high mortality. Age is predictive of poor prognosis in multivariate analysis.

Publication bias occurs when studies with statistically significant results have increased likelihood of being published. Publication bias is commonly associated with inflated treatment effect which lowers the certainty of decision makers about the evidence. In this guide we propose that systematic reviewers and decision makers consider the direction and magnitude of publication bias, as opposed to just the binary determination of the presence of this bias, before lowering their certainty in the evidence. Direction of bias may not always exaggerate the treatment effect. The presence of bias with a trivial magnitude may not affect the decision at hand. Various statistical approaches are available to determine the direction and magnitude of publication bias.

BACKGROUND: There has been a surge in clinical trials studying the safety and efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells for the treatment of perianal Crohn’s disease. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this work was to systematically review the literature to determine safety and efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells for the treatment of refractory perianal Crohn’s disease. DATA SOURCES: Sources included PubMed, Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that reported safety and/or efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells for the treatment of perianal Crohn’s disease were included. Two independent assessors reviewed eligible articles. INTERVENTION: The study intervention was delivery of mesenchymal stem cells to treat perianal Crohn’s disease. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Safety and efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells used to treat perianal Crohn’s disease were measured. RESULTS: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. Three trials with a comparison arm were included in the meta-analysis. There were no significant increases in adverse events (OR = 1.07 (95% CI, 0.61–1.89); p = 0.81) or serious adverse events (OR = 0.53 (95% CI, 0.28–0.98); p = 0.04) in patients treated with mesenchymal stem cells. Mesenchymal stem cells were associated with improved healing as compared with control subjects at primary end points of 6 to 24 weeks (OR = 3.06 (95% CI, 1.05–8.90); p = 0.04) and 24 to 52 weeks (OR = 2.37 (95% CI, 0.90–6.25); p = 0.08). LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its multiple centers and heterogeneity in the study inclusion criteria, mesenchymal stem cell origin, dose and frequency of delivery, use of scaffolding, and definition and time point of fistula healing. CONCLUSIONS: Although there have been only 3 trials conducted with control arms, existing data demonstrate improved efficacy and no increase in adverse or serious adverse events with mesenchymal stem cells as compared with control subjects for the treatment of perianal Crohn’s disease.

689 Background: The role of antiangiogenic agents in advanced RCC is well established. However, it is still not clear whether this benefit can be extrapolated to the adjuvant setting. In this meta-analysis of 3 randomized control trials (RCTs), we sought to determine the efficacy of these agents in RCC patients who underwent nephrectomy with high risk of relapse. Methods: We searched three databases, including Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify RCTs comparing antiangiogenic agents to placebo in post-nephrectomy RCC patients. We evaluated: 1) the effect of antiangiogenics in highest risk groups as defined by individual studies; 2) the role of each agent separately; and 3) the effect in clear-cell RCC population. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). The overall effect was pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects models Results: Three RCTs (N = 3693 patients) were identified. All studies were comparing placebo to antiangiogenics: sunitinib, sorafenib, and pazopanib. Overall, antiangiogenics did not improve DFS (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.07) or OS (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.25). These results persisted when restricting the analysis to patients with clear cell carcinoma and patients with highest risk of relapse. Similarly, sunitinib did not show any improvement in the entire studied group for either DFS (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.19) or OS (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.37). In addition, when restricting the analysis to the high risk group, sunitinib did not show any advantage in terms of DFS (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.07) and OS (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.31). Conclusions: Based on the available evidence, antiangiogenics do not seem to add an advantage over placebo in terms of OS and DFS in high risk RCC patients after nephrectomy. Further studies are needed to identify the patient population which might derive a benefit from antiangiogenics in the adjuvant setting.

Background: A shorter sleep duration has been identified as a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases and increased mortality. It has been hypothesized that a short sleep duration may be linked to changes in ghrelin and leptin production, leading to an alteration of stress hormone production. Here, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the potential relationship between a sleep duration and cardiovascular disease mortality. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of Ovid Medline In-Process and other non-indexed citations, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus from database inception to March 2017. Observational studies were included if the studies reported hazard ratios or odds ratios of the associations between sleep durations (short and long) and cardiovascular disease mortality. Data were extracted by a reviewer and then reviewed by two separate reviewers. Conflicts were resolved through consensus. Using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects models, we calculated pooled hazard ratios and pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Subgroup analyses were performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. The quality of the included studies and publication bias were assessed. Results: In total, our meta-analysis included 19 studies (31 cohorts) with a total of 816,995 individuals with 42,870 cardiovascular disease mortality cases. In pooled analyses, both short (risk ratio 1.19; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.26, P<0.001, I2=30.7, Pheterogeneity=0.034), and long (risk ratio 1.37; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.52, P<0.001, I2=79.75, Pheterogeneity<0.001) sleep durations were associated with a greater risk of cardiovascular disease mortality. Conclusions: Both short (<7 hours) and long sleep durations (>9 hours) can increase the risk of overall cardiovascular disease mortality, particularly in Asian populations and elderly individuals. Future epidemiological studies would ideally include objective sleep measurements, rather than self-report measures, and all potential confounders, such as genetic variants.