Efficacy of Anti-VEGF Drugs Based Combination Therapies in Recurrent Glioblastoma: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Vinod Solipuram, Ramin Soltani, B P Venkatesulu, Saketh Annam, Firoozeh Alavian, Sorayya Ghasemi
{"title":"Efficacy of Anti-VEGF Drugs Based Combination Therapies in Recurrent Glioblastoma: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Vinod Solipuram, Ramin Soltani, B P Venkatesulu, Saketh Annam, Firoozeh Alavian, Sorayya Ghasemi","doi":"10.2174/2772432817666220517163609","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (rGBM) has a grim prognosis, with current therapies offering no survival benefit. Several combination therapies involving anti-VEGF agents have been studied with mixed results.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search was performed using five electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, ISI, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, without language limitations. The primary outcome of interest was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), objective response ratio (ORR), and grade ≥ 3 adverse events. Estimates for PFS and OS were calculated as random effects hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the generic inverse variance method. Estimates for ORR and grade ≥ 3 adverse events were calculated using a random-effects risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the Mantel-Haenszel method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria and a total of 1994 patients were included in the analysis. There was no statistically significant improvement in PFS (HR 0.84; 95% CI (0.68, 1.03); I<sup>2</sup>=81%), OS (HR 0.99; 95% CI (0.88, 1.12); I<sup>2</sup>=0%), and ORR (RR 1.36; 95% CI (0.96, 1.92); I<sup>2</sup>=61%) in the combination therapy group when compared to the control group. Significantly higher grade ≥ 3 adverse events (RR 1.30; 95% CI (1.14, 1.48); I<sup>2</sup>=47%) were seen in the combination therapy when compared to the control group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our analysis showed that the use of combination therapy with anti-VEGF agents did not offer any benefit in PFS, OS, or ORR. In contrast, it had significantly higher grade 3-5 adverse events. Further studies are needed to identify effective therapies in rGBM that can improve survival.</p>","PeriodicalId":29871,"journal":{"name":"Current Reviews in Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Reviews in Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/2772432817666220517163609","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (rGBM) has a grim prognosis, with current therapies offering no survival benefit. Several combination therapies involving anti-VEGF agents have been studied with mixed results.

Methods: A systematic search was performed using five electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, ISI, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, without language limitations. The primary outcome of interest was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), objective response ratio (ORR), and grade ≥ 3 adverse events. Estimates for PFS and OS were calculated as random effects hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the generic inverse variance method. Estimates for ORR and grade ≥ 3 adverse events were calculated using a random-effects risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the Mantel-Haenszel method.

Results: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria and a total of 1994 patients were included in the analysis. There was no statistically significant improvement in PFS (HR 0.84; 95% CI (0.68, 1.03); I2=81%), OS (HR 0.99; 95% CI (0.88, 1.12); I2=0%), and ORR (RR 1.36; 95% CI (0.96, 1.92); I2=61%) in the combination therapy group when compared to the control group. Significantly higher grade ≥ 3 adverse events (RR 1.30; 95% CI (1.14, 1.48); I2=47%) were seen in the combination therapy when compared to the control group.

Conclusion: Our analysis showed that the use of combination therapy with anti-VEGF agents did not offer any benefit in PFS, OS, or ORR. In contrast, it had significantly higher grade 3-5 adverse events. Further studies are needed to identify effective therapies in rGBM that can improve survival.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
抗vegf药物联合治疗复发性胶质母细胞瘤的疗效:系统评价和荟萃分析。
背景复发性多形性胶质母细胞瘤(rGBM)预后不佳,目前的治疗方法对生存没有益处。已经研究了几种涉及抗VEGF药物的联合疗法,结果喜忧参半。方法使用PubMed、Scopus、ISI、Embase和Cochrane Library五个电子数据库进行系统搜索,不受语言限制。感兴趣的主要结果是无进展生存期(PFS)。次要结果为总生存率(OS)、客观缓解率(ORR)和≥3级不良事件。PFS和OS的估计值采用通用逆方差法计算为具有95%置信区间(CI)的随机效应危险比(HR)。ORR≥3级不良事件的估计值采用随机效应风险比(RR),95%置信区间(CI)采用Mantel Haenszel方法计算。结果这些研究符合纳入标准,共有1994名患者被纳入分析。PFS无统计学显著改善(HR 0.84;95%CI(0.68,1.03);I2=81%),OS(HR 0.99;95%CI(0.88,1.12);I2=0%),ORR(rr1.36;95%CI(0.96,1.92);I2=61%)。≥3次不良事件分级明显更高(RR 1.30;95%CI(1.14,1.48);I2=47%)。结论我们的分析表明,联合使用抗VEGF药物对PFS、OS或ORR没有任何益处。相反,它有明显更高的3-5级不良事件。需要进一步的研究来确定可以提高生存率的rGBM的有效治疗方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
9.10%
发文量
55
期刊最新文献
Bigels as Novel Drug Delivery Systems: A Systematic Review on Efficiency and Influential Factors. Effectiveness and Tolerability of Various 5-Fluorouracil Formulations as Adjuvant Therapies for Vitiligo Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Exploring the Role of Deutetrabenazine in the Treatment of Chorea Linked with Huntington's Disease. Insights into the Pathogenesis and Treatment of Chemotherapy-Induced Neuropathy: A Focus on Oxidative Stress and Neuroinflammation. Leveraging Generative AI for Drug Safety and Pharmacovigilance.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1