Comparing the risk of cardiovascular disease following GnRH agonist and GnRH antagonist therapy for patient with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Chengquan Ma, I. R. Abeysekera, Wen-Jing Xu, Ying Wang, Jianjun Peng, Hongjun Li
{"title":"Comparing the risk of cardiovascular disease following GnRH agonist and GnRH antagonist therapy for patient with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Chengquan Ma, I. R. Abeysekera, Wen-Jing Xu, Ying Wang, Jianjun Peng, Hongjun Li","doi":"10.23736/S0393-2249.20.03756-X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION\nTo compare the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) following gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist and GnRH antagonist therapy for patient with prostate cancer (PCa).\n\n\nEVIDENCE ACQUISITION\nWe searched PubMed, Web of science, Opengery, Cochrane library databases and international congress reports for studies published before December 2019. This meta-analysis was conducted using Stata version 12.0. Relative ratios (RRs) and their credible intervals (CI) were applied for the cardiovascular safety evaluation of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) medical interventions, including GnRH agonist and GnRH antagonist therapy. In addition, fixed-effect or random-effect models were applied in the statistical analyses according to the heterogeneity.\n\n\nEVIDENCE SYNTHESIS\nSix articles including 32,997 participants were analyzed with a random effects model. The results of meta-analysis showed that compared with GnRH agonist, the incidents of CVD was equal to GnRH antagonist therapy for patient with PCa (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.94-1.02). When considering, under sub-group analysis with randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs), no statistical differences in risk of CVD were found in two sub-group analyses. No evidence of publication bias was found in our meta-analysis by a funnel plot (Pr> | z |=0.26).\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nThis meta-analysis indicates that compared treatment with GnRH antagonist, risks of CVD in PCa patients was the same as GnRH agonist. Further RCTs are strongly required to provide more definitive evidence.","PeriodicalId":49015,"journal":{"name":"Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.20.03756-X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

INTRODUCTION To compare the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) following gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist and GnRH antagonist therapy for patient with prostate cancer (PCa). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION We searched PubMed, Web of science, Opengery, Cochrane library databases and international congress reports for studies published before December 2019. This meta-analysis was conducted using Stata version 12.0. Relative ratios (RRs) and their credible intervals (CI) were applied for the cardiovascular safety evaluation of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) medical interventions, including GnRH agonist and GnRH antagonist therapy. In addition, fixed-effect or random-effect models were applied in the statistical analyses according to the heterogeneity. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Six articles including 32,997 participants were analyzed with a random effects model. The results of meta-analysis showed that compared with GnRH agonist, the incidents of CVD was equal to GnRH antagonist therapy for patient with PCa (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.94-1.02). When considering, under sub-group analysis with randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs), no statistical differences in risk of CVD were found in two sub-group analyses. No evidence of publication bias was found in our meta-analysis by a funnel plot (Pr> | z |=0.26). CONCLUSIONS This meta-analysis indicates that compared treatment with GnRH antagonist, risks of CVD in PCa patients was the same as GnRH agonist. Further RCTs are strongly required to provide more definitive evidence.
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
比较前列腺癌患者GnRH激动剂和GnRH拮抗剂治疗后心血管疾病的风险:系统回顾和荟萃分析
目的:比较前列腺癌(PCa)患者接受促性腺激素释放激素(GnRH)激动剂和GnRH拮抗剂治疗后心血管疾病(CVD)的风险。我们检索了PubMed、Web of science、Opengery、Cochrane图书馆数据库和国际大会报告,以获取2019年12月之前发表的研究。本荟萃分析使用Stata 12.0版本进行。应用相对比值(rr)及其可信区间(CI)评价雄激素剥夺治疗(ADT)医学干预(包括GnRH激动剂和GnRH拮抗剂治疗)的心血管安全性。根据异质性,采用固定效应或随机效应模型进行统计分析。证据综合采用随机效应模型对6篇文章32997名受试者进行分析。meta分析结果显示,与GnRH拮抗剂治疗相比,前列腺癌患者心血管疾病的发生率与GnRH拮抗剂治疗相同(RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.94-1.02)。在随机对照试验(RCTs)或对照临床试验(CCTs)的亚组分析中,两个亚组分析中没有发现CVD风险的统计学差异。通过漏斗图进行meta分析,未发现发表偏倚的证据(Pr> | z |=0.26)。结论:本荟萃分析表明,与GnRH拮抗剂治疗相比,前列腺癌患者发生心血管疾病的风险与GnRH拮抗剂相同。强烈要求进一步的随机对照试验提供更明确的证据。
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
Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica
Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica publishes scientific papers on nephrology and urology. Manuscripts may be submitted in the form of Minerva opinion editorials, editorial comments, original articles, video illustrated articles, review articles and letters to the Editor.
期刊最新文献
Real-life data on long-term follow-up of patients successfully treated with percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS). Identifying tumor-related risk factors for simultaneous adrenalectomy in patients with cT1 - cT2 kidney cancer during robotic assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. A systematic review of nerve-sparing surgery for high-risk prostate cancer. Comparison of outcomes between laparoscopic and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for complex renal tumors (RENAL score ≥ 7 or maximum tumor size > 4cm): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Totally intracorporeal robotic ileal ureter replacement: focus on surgical technique and outcomes.
×
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