METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central systematically for the randomised control trials (RCTs) of interventions for preventing OM. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to estimate risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from both direct and indirect evidence. The primary outcome was any grade of OM. Secondary outcomes were mild-moderate OM, severe OM and adverse events, such as taste disturbance and gastrointestinal adverse events. This study was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016052489.
RESULTS: A total of 29 RCTs with 2348 patients (median age, 56.1 years; 57.5% male) were included. Cryotherapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of OM than control (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.68), and zinc sulphate (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.97), but not significantly lower than sucralfate and palifermin. No significant differences were observed between cryotherapy and control for taste disturbance and gastrointestinal adverse events. Palifermin was associated with the highest risk of taste disturbance.
CONCLUSIONS: This NMA suggests that cryotherapy was the most effective intervention for preventing chemotherapy-induced OM with a safety profile similar to control, but not significantly lower than sucralfate and palifermin. Large RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.
DESIGN: Network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Web of Science from database inception to January 2022.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing exercise therapy with oral NSAIDs and paracetamol directly or indirectly in knee or hip OA.
RESULTS: A total of n=152 RCTs (17 431 participants) were included. For pain relief, there was no difference between exercise and oral NSAIDs and paracetamol at or nearest to 4 (standardised mean difference (SMD)=-0.12, 95% credibility interval (CrI) -1.74 to 1.50; n=47 RCTs), 8 (SMD=0.22, 95% CrI -0.05 to 0.49; n=2 RCTs) and 24 weeks (SMD=0.17, 95% CrI -0.77 to 1.12; n=9 RCTs). Similarly, there was no difference between exercise and oral NSAIDs and paracetamol in functional improvement at or nearest to 4 (SMD=0.09, 95% CrI -1.69 to 1.85; n=40 RCTs), 8 (SMD=0.06, 95% CrI -0.20 to 0.33; n=2 RCTs) and 24 weeks (SMD=0.05, 95% CrI -1.15 to 1.24; n=9 RCTs).
CONCLUSIONS: Exercise has similar effects on pain and function to that of oral NSAIDs and paracetamol. Given its excellent safety profile, exercise should be given more prominence in clinical care, especially in older people with comorbidity or at higher risk of adverse events related to NSAIDs and paracetamol.CRD42019135166.
METHODS: Systematic review and NMA of randomised controlled trials were performed, and the most suitable CPA was chosen based on efficacy and the most favourable risk-benefit profile. The economic benefits of CPA alone, 3 yearly SC alone, and a combination of CPA and SC were determined using the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) in the Malaysian health-care perspective. Outcomes were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2018 US Dollars ($) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and life-years (LYs) gained.
RESULTS: According to NMA, the risk-benefit profile favours the use of aspirin at very-low-dose (ASAVLD, ≤ 100 mg/day) for secondary prevention in individuals with previous ACAs. Celecoxib is the most effective CPA but the cardiovascular adverse events are of concern. According to CEA, the combination strategy (ASAVLD with 3-yearly SC) was cost-saving and dominates its competitors as the best buy option. The probability of being cost-effective for ASAVLD alone, 3-yearly SC alone, and combination strategy were 22%, 26%, and 53%, respectively. Extending the SC interval to five years in combination strategy was more cost-effective when compared to 3-yearly SC alone (ICER of $484/LY gain and $1875/QALY). However, extending to ten years in combination strategy was not cost-effective.
CONCLUSION: ASAVLD combined with 3-yearly SC in individuals with ACAs may be a cost-effective strategy for CRC prevention. An extension of SC intervals to five years can be considered in resource-limited countries.
METHODS: We searched for RCTs published up until September 2016. Retrieved trials were evaluated using risk of bias. We performed both pairwise analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) of RCTs to compare the effects of CPAs on the recurrence of colorectal adenomas (primary outcome). Using NMA, we ranked CPAs based on efficacy.
RESULTS: We identified 20 eligible RCTs enrolling 12,625 participants with a history of colorectal cancer or adenomas who were randomly assigned to receive either a placebo or one of 12 interventions. NMA using all trials demonstrated that celecoxib 800 mg/day (relative risk [RR] 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-0.83), celecoxib 400 mg/day (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55-0.87), low-dose aspirin (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59-0.96) and calcium (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.96) were significantly associated with a reduction in the recurrence of any adenomas. NMA results were consistent with those from pairwise meta-analysis. The evidence indicated a high (celecoxib), moderate (low-dose aspirin) and low (calcium) Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) quality. NMA ranking showed that celecoxib 800 mg/day and celecoxib 400 mg/day were the best CPAs, followed by low-dose aspirin and calcium. Considering advanced adenoma recurrence, only celecoxib 800 mg/day and celecoxib 400 mg/day were demonstrated to have a protective effect (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.27-0.52 vs RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.38-0.60, respectively).
CONCLUSION: The available evidence from NMA suggests that celecoxib is more effective in reducing the risk of recurrence of colorectal adenomas, followed by low-dose aspirin and calcium. Since cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors (eg, celecoxib) are associated with important cardiovascular events and gastrointestinal harms, more attention is warranted toward CPAs with a favorable benefit-to-risk ratio, such as low-dose aspirin and calcium.
Methods: A systematic review and network meta-analysis was performed; searches of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) included all randomized controlled trials and observational studies conducted in adult patients hospitalized in ICUs and evaluating standard care (STD), antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP), environmental cleaning (ENV), decolonization methods (DCL), or source control (SCT), simultaneously. The primary outcomes were MDR-GNB acquisition, colonization, and infection; secondary outcome was ICU mortality.
Results: Of 3805 publications retrieved, 42 met inclusion criteria (5 randomized controlled trials and 37 observational studies), involving 62068 patients (median age, 58.8 years; median APACHE [Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation] II score, 18.9). The majority of studies reported extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae and MDR Acinetobacter baumannii. Compared with STD, a 4-component strategy composed of STD, ASP, ENV, and SCT was the most effective intervention (rate ratio [RR], 0.05 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .01-.38]). When ENV was added to STD+ASP or SCT was added to STD+ENV, there was a significant reduction in the acquisition of MDR A. baumannii (RR, 0.28 [95% CI, .18-.43] and 0.48 [95% CI, .35-.66], respectively). Strategies with ASP as a core component showed a statistically significant reduction the acquisition of ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae (RR, 0.28 [95% CI, .11-.69] for STD+ASP+ENV and 0.23 [95% CI, .07-.80] for STD+ASP+DCL).
Conclusions: A 4-component strategy was the most effective intervention to prevent MDR-GNB acquisition. As some strategies were differential for certain bacteria, our study highlighted the need for further evaluation of the most effective prevention strategies.
METHODS: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis based on randomised controlled trials that compared antifungal agents to placebo or other antifungal agents used in patients undergoing cancer treatment. Relative ranking of antifungal agents was evaluated with surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probability score. A total of 20 randomised controlled trials (3,215 participants) comparing 11 interventions were included.
RESULTS: Compared with placebo, clotrimazole was ranked the best agent for preventing the incidence of oral candidiasis (risk ratio (RR), 0.21 [95% CI 0.08 to 0.55]; SUCRA = 0.89). Fluconazole was ranked the safest among other antifungal agents (SUCRA = 0.80), whereas clotrimazole (SUCRA = 0.36) and amphotericin B (SUCRA = 0.18) were ranked low for safety. Amphotericin B was associated with highest risk of adverse events (RR, 3.52 [95% CI 1.27 to 9.75]).
CONCLUSION: Clotrimazole is the most effective in preventing oral candidiasis, whereas fluconazole has the most favourable risk-benefit profile in patients undergoing cancer treatment. However, we are unable to recommend clotrimazole as the best choice to prevent oral candidiasis due to unavailability of studies comparing clotrimazole with other antifungal agents.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of different types of systemic immunosuppressive treatments for moderate to severe eczema using NMA and to generate rankings of available systemic immunosuppressive treatments for eczema according to their efficacy and safety.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to August 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase.
SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic immunosuppressive agents for moderate to severe atopic eczema when compared against placebo or any other eligible eczema treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We synthesised data using pair-wise analysis and NMA to compare treatments and rank them according to their effectiveness. Effectiveness was assessed primarily by determining the proportion of participants who achieved at least 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI75) and improvement in the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM). Safety was evaluated primarily by considering the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) and infection. We deemed short-term follow-up as ≤ 16 weeks and long-term follow-up as > 16 weeks. We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for these primary outcomes using six domains of CiNEMA grading.
MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 74 studies, with 8177 randomised participants. Approximately 55% of participants were male, with average age of 32 years (range 2 to 84 years), although age and gender were unreported for 419 and 902 participants, respectively. Most of the included trials were placebo controlled (65%), 34% were head-to-head studies (15% assessed the effects of different doses of the same drug), and 1% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. All trials included participants with moderate to severe eczema, but 62% of studies did not separate data by severity; 38% of studies assessed only severe eczema. The total duration of included trials ranged from 2 weeks to 60 months, whereas treatment duration varied from a single dose (CIM331, KPL-716) to 60 months (methotrexate (MTX)). Seventy studies were available for quantitative synthesis; this review assessed 29 immunosuppressive agents from three classes of interventions. These included (1) conventional treatments, with ciclosporin assessed most commonly; (2) small molecule treatments, including phosphodiesterase (PDE)-4 inhibitors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors; and (3) biological treatments, including anti-CD31 receptors, anti-interleukin (IL)-22, anti-IL-31, anti-IL-13, anti-IL-12/23p40, anti-OX40, anti-TSLP, anti-CRTH2, and anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE) monoclonal antibodies, but most commonly dupilumab. Most trials (73) assessed outcomes at a short-term duration ranging from 2 to 16 weeks, whereas 33 trials assessed long-term outcomes, with duration ranging from 5 to 60 months. All participants were from a hospital setting. Fifty-two studies declared a source of funding, and of these, pharmaceutical companies funded 88%. We rated 37 studies as high risk; 21, unclear risk, and 16, low risk of bias, with studies most commonly at high risk of attrition bias. Network meta-analysis suggests that dupilumab ranks first for effectiveness when compared with other biological treatments. Dupilumab is more effective than placebo in achieving EASI75 (risk ratio (RR) 3.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.51 to 3.69) and improvement in POEM score (mean difference 7.30, 95% CI 6.61 to 8.00) at short-term follow-up (high-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain of the effects of dupilumab when compared with placebo, in terms of the proportion of participants who achieve EASI75 (RR 2.59, 95% CI 1.87 to 3.60) at longer-term follow-up. Low-certainty evidence indicates that tralokinumab may be more effective than placebo in achieving short-term EASI75 (RR 2.54, 95% CI 1.21 to 5.34), but there was no evidence for tralokinumab to allow us to assess short-term follow-up of POEM or long-term follow-up of EASI75. We are uncertain of the effect of ustekinumab compared with placebo in achieving EASI75 (long-term follow-up: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.45; short-term follow-up: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.97; both very low certainty). We found no evidence on ustekinumab for the POEM outcome. We are uncertain whether other immunosuppressive agents that targeted our key outcomes influence the achievement of short-term EASI75 compared with placebo due to low- or very low-certainty evidence. Dupilumab and ustekinumab were the only immunosuppressive agents evaluated for longer-term EASI75. Dupilumab was the only agent evaluated for improvement in POEM during short-term follow-up. Low- to moderate-certainty evidence indicates a lower proportion of participants with SAEs after treatment with QAW039 and dupilumab compared to placebo during short-term follow-up, but low- to very low-certainty evidence suggests no difference in SAEs during short-term follow-up of other immunosuppressive agents compared to placebo. Evidence for effects of immunosuppressive agents on risk of any infection during short-term follow-up and SAEs during long-term follow-up compared with placebo was of low or very low certainty but did not indicate a difference. We did not identify differences in other adverse events (AEs), but dupilumab is associated with specific AEs, including eye inflammation and eosinophilia.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that dupilumab is the most effective biological treatment for eczema. Compared to placebo, dupilumab reduces eczema signs and symptoms in the short term for people with moderate to severe atopic eczema. Short-term safety outcomes from clinical trials did not reveal new safety concerns with dupilumab. Overall, evidence for the efficacy of most other immunosuppressive treatments for moderate to severe atopic eczema is of low or very low certainty. Given the lack of data comparing conventional with newer biological treatments for the primary outcomes, there remains high uncertainty for ranking the efficacy and safety of conventional treatments such as ciclosporin and biological treatments such as dupilumab. Most studies were placebo-controlled and assessed only short-term efficacy of immunosuppressive agents. Further adequately powered head-to-head RCTs should evaluate comparative long-term efficacy and safety of available treatments for moderate to severe eczema.
METHODS: We searched nine databases from inception to 8 February 2018 for randomized controlled trials evaluating pharmacological interventions and clinical outcomes in adult bacterial meningitis. An updated search from 9 February to 9 March 2020 was performed, and no new studies met the inclusion criteria. Study quality was assessed using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system was used for quality of evidences evaluation. Meta-analyses were conducted to estimate the risk ratio with 95% confidence interval for both direct and indirect comparisons on the primary outcomes of all-cause mortality, neurologic sequelae and any hearing loss. The study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018108062).
RESULTS: Nine RCTs were included in systematic review, involving 1,002 participants with a mean age ranging between 25.3 to 50.56 years. Six RCTs were finally included in the network-meta analysis. No significant difference between treatment was noted in meta-analysis. Network meta-analysis suggests that corticosteroids in combination with antibiotic therapy was more effective in reducing the risk of any hearing loss compared to mono antibiotic therapy (RR 0.64; 95%CI, 0.45 to 0.91, 4 RCTs, moderate certainty of evidence). Numerical lower risk of mortality and neurological complications was also shown for adjunctive corticosteroids in combination with antibiotic therapy versus mono antibiotic therapy (RR 0.65; 95%CI, 0.42 to 1.02, 6 RCTs, moderate certainty of evidence; RR 0.75; 95%CI, 0.47 to 1.18, 6 RCTs, moderate certainty of evidence). No differences were noted in the adverse events between different therapies. The overall certainty of evidence was moderate to very low for all primary outcomes examined.
CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study suggest that corticosteroids therapy in combination with antibiotic is more effective than mono antibiotic therapy in reducing the risk of any hearing loss in adult patients with acute bacterial meningitis. More well-design RCTs to investigate relative effective treatments in acute bacterial meningitis particularly in adult population should be mandated to aid clinicians in treatment recommendations.
Materials and Methods: We used three online databases, i.e., PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane Central Registry of Clinical Trials. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of prophylactic chemotherapeutic agents used in treating nonpregnant women with recurrent urinary tract infections (RUTIs) published between 2002 and 2016 were selected. Only published papers in English were assessed for study quality, and meta-analyses were performed using fixed-effects model with NetMetaXL.
Results: Six RCTs fulfilled the criteria. When all three variables, i.e., efficacy, adverse effects and cost were considered, nitrofurantoin 50 mg once daily for 6 months appears to rank high for prophylaxis against RUTI. When efficacy was the only factor, fosfomycin had the highest superiority compared to D-mannose, nitrofurantoin, estriol, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and cranberry juice, respectively. However, fosfomycin was also ranked highest by adverse events. When cost alone is considered, nitrofurantoin appeared the most cost-effective agent while placed third for efficacy alone.
Conclusion: Selecting appropriate chemotherapeutic agents for RUTI will need to factor in effectiveness, adverse effects, and cost. While it is difficult to select an ideal drug, evaluation using network analysis may guide choice of medication for best practice.
METHODS: Randomized trials, assessing the efficacy of antiviral drugs for HBV and HIV co-infected patients were searched in health-related databases. The methodological quality of the included trials was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Main outcome in this meta-analysis study was the success of treatment by antivirals as determined by virologic response. We performed pairwise and network meta-analysis of these trials and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS: Seven randomized trials (329 participants) were included in this network meta-analysis study. A network geometry was formed with six treatment options including four antiviral drugs, adefovir (ADV), emtricitabine (FTC), lamivudine (LMV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), combination treatment of TDF plus LMV, and placebo. The weighted percentage contributions of each comparison distributed fairly equally in the entire network of evidence. An assumption of consistency required for network meta-analysis was not violated (the global Wald test for inconsistency: Chi2(4) = 3.63, p = 0.46). The results of estimates showed no differences between the treatment regimens in terms of viral response for treating HBV and HIV co-infected patients, which spanned both benefit and harm (e.g. LMV vs TDF plus LMV: OR: 0.37, 95%CI: 0.06-2.41). Overall, the certainty of evidence was very low in all comparisons (e.g. LMV vs TDF plus LMV: 218 fewer per 1000,121 more to 602 fewer, very low certainty). Therefore, we remained uncertain to the true ranking of the antiviral treatments in HBV/ HIV co-infected patients.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the evidence is insufficient to provide guidance to the relative effectiveness of currently available antiviral drugs with dual activity in treating co-infection of HBV/HIV. Well-designed, large clinical trials in this field to address other important outcomes from different epidemiological settings are recommended.
METHODS: Relevant randomized trials that assessed efficacy of antimalarial drugs for patients having uncomplicated falciparum malaria in Asian region were searched in health-related databases. We evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Main outcome was treatment success at day 28 as determined by the absence of parasiteamia. We performed network meta-analysis of the interventions in the trials, and assessed the overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS: Seventeen randomized trials (n = 5043) were included in this network meta-analysis study. A network geometry was formed with 14 antimalarial treatment options such as artemether-lumefantrine (AL), artemisinin-piperaquine, artesunate-amodiaquine, artesunate-mefloquine (ASMQ), artesunate-chloroquine, artesunate-mefloquine home treatment, artesunate-mefloquine 2-day course, artesunate plus sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine, chloroquine, dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DHP), dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine home treatment, dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine 4-day course, dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine and added artesunate, sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine. A maximum number of trials included was DHP compared to ASMQ (n = 5). In general, DHP had better efficacy than AL at day 28 (DHP vs AL: OR 2.5, 95%CI:1.08-5.8). There is low certainty evidence due to limited number of studies and small trials.
DISCUSSION/ CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest the superiority of DHP (3-day course) to AL and other comparator ACTs are with the overall low/very low quality of evidence judgements. Moreover, one drug regimen is better than another is only if current drug-resistance patterns are at play. For example, the AL might be better than DHP in areas where both artemisinin and piperaquine resistance patterns are prevalent. For substantiation, well-designed larger trials from endemic countries are needed. In the light of benefit versus harm concept, future analysis with safety information is recommended.
METHODS: We selected randomized controlled trials, assessing efficacy of antibiotics for the treatment of leptospirosis as a case study. A pairwise meta-analysis was conducted using a random effect model, assuming that different studies assessed different but related treatment effects. The analysis was then extended to a network meta-analysis, which consists of direct and indirect evidence in a network of antibiotics trials, using a suite of multivariate meta-analysis routines of STATA (mvmeta command). We also assessed an assumption of 'consistency' that estimates of treatment effects from direct and indirect evidence are in agreement.
RESULTS: Seven randomised controlled trials were identified for this analysis. These RCTs assessed the efficacy of antibiotics such as penicillin, doxycycline and cephalosporin for the treatment of human leptospirosis. These studies made comparisons between antibiotics (i.e. an antibiotic versus alternative antibiotic) in the primary study and a placebo, except for cephalosporin. These studies were sufficient to allow the creation of a network for the network meta-analysis; a closed loop in which three comparator antibiotics were connected to each other through a polygon. The comparison of penicillin versus the placebo has the largest contribution to the entire network (31.8%). The assessment of rank probabilities indicated that penicillin presented the greatest likelihood of improving efficacy among the evaluated antibiotics for treating leptospirosis.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that network meta-analysis, a meta-analysis comparing multiple treatments, is feasible and should be considered as better precision of effect estimates for decisions when several antibiotic options are available for the treatment of leptospirosis.
METHODS: The current investigation extends a recently published study in the International Endodontic Journal (Nagendrababu V, Faggion Jr CM, Pulikkotil SJ, Alatta A, Dummer PM Methodological assessment and overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses in Endodontics. International Endodontic Journal 2022;55:393-404) that assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews with NMAs in Endodontics using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) tool. In the present study, the PRISMA for NMA checklist with 32 items was used to assess the reporting quality of the systematic reviews with NMAs (n = 12). Two independent assessors assigned '1' when an item was completely addressed, '0.5' when it was partially addressed, and '0' when it was not addressed. Disagreements were resolved through reviewer discussion until consensus was reached. If conflicts persisted, a third reviewer made the final decision. The PRISMA for NMA scores were shared with the relevant authors of the individual reviews to reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation and verify the scores assigned. The results for each individual item of the PRISMA-NMA items were calculated by summing the individual scores awarded; the maximum score for each item was 12.
RESULTS: All the systematic reviews with NMAs adequately reported the following items: Title, Introduction section (Objectives), Methods section (Eligibility criteria and Information sources), Results section (Study selection, Study characteristics and Risk of bias within studies), and Discussion section (Summary of evidence). The items that were reported least often were the "geometry of the network" and "the summary of network geometry" with only 2 manuscripts (17%) including these items.
CONCLUSION: A number of the items in the PRISMA-NMA checklist were adequately addressed in the NMAs; however, none adequately reported all the PRISMA-NMA items. The inadequacies of published NMAs that have been identified should be taken into consideration by authors of NMAs in Endodontics and by editors when managing the peer review process. In future, researchers who are writing systematic reviews with NMAs should comply with the PRISMA-NMA checklist.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: None of the included systematic reviews with NMA adequately reported all the PRISMA-NMA items. Inadequate reporting of a systematic review with NMA increases the possibility that it will provide invalid results. Therefore, authors should follow the PRISMA-NMA guidelines when reporting systematic reviews with NMA in Endodontics.
METHODS: We carried out a systematic search in 11 electronic databases to identify in vivo studies published between 2001 and 2017 that reported artemisinin resistance. This was then followed by A network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of different ACTs. Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB) tool for randomized controlled trials and National Institute of Health (NIH) tool for cross-sectional studies. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO under number CRD42018087574.
RESULTS: With 8400 studies initially identified, 82 were eligible for qualitative and quantitative analysis. Artemisinin resistance was only reported in South East Asia. K13 mutation C580Y was the most abundant mutation associated with resistance having an abundance of 63.1% among all K13 mutations reported. Although the overall network meta-analysis had shown good performance of dihydroartemisinin piperaquine in the early years, a subgroup analysis of the recent years revealed a poor performance of the drug in relation to recrudescence, clinical failure and parasitological failure especially in the artemisinin resistant regions.
CONCLUSION: With report of high resistance and treatment failure against the leading artemisinin combination therapy in South East Asia, it is imperative that a new drug or a formulation is developed before further spread of resistance.
METHODS: We did a genome-wide association study of NKTCL in multiple populations from east Asia. We recruited a discovery cohort of 700 cases with NKTCL and 7752 controls without NKTCL of Han Chinese ancestry from 19 centres in southern, central, and northern regions of China, and four independent replication samples including 717 cases and 12 650 controls. Three of these independent samples (451 cases and 5301 controls) were from eight centres in the same regions of southern, central, and northern China, and the fourth (266 cases and 7349 controls) was from 11 centres in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea. All cases had primary NKTCL that was confirmed histopathologically, and matching with controls was based on geographical region and self-reported ancestry. Logistic regression analysis was done independently by geographical regions, followed by fixed-effect meta-analyses, to identify susceptibility loci. Bioinformatic approaches, including expression quantitative trait loci, binding motif and transcriptome analyses, and biological experiments were done to fine-map and explore the functional relevance of genome-wide association loci to the development of NKTCL.
FINDINGS: Genetic data were gathered between Jan 1, 2008, and Jan 23, 2019. Meta-analysis of all samples (a total of 1417 cases and 20 402 controls) identified two novel loci significantly associated with NKTCL: IL18RAP on 2q12.1 (rs13015714; p=2·83 × 10-16; odds ratio 1·39 [95% CI 1·28-1·50]) and HLA-DRB1 on 6p21.3 (rs9271588; 9·35 × 10-26 1·53 [1·41-1·65]). Fine-mapping and experimental analyses showed that rs1420106 at the promoter of IL18RAP was highly correlated with rs13015714, and the rs1420106-A risk variant had an upregulatory effect on IL18RAP expression. Cell growth assays in two NKTCL cell lines (YT and SNK-6 cells) showed that knockdown of IL18RAP inhibited cell proliferation by cell cycle arrest in NKTCL cells. Haplotype association analysis showed that haplotype 47F-67I was associated with reduced risk of NKTCL, whereas 47Y-67L was associated with increased risk of NKTCL. These two positions are component parts of the peptide-binding pocket 7 (P7) of the HLA-DR heterodimer, suggesting that these alterations might account for the association at HLA-DRB1, independent of the previously reported HLA-DPB1 variants.
INTERPRETATION: Our findings provide new insights into the development of NKTCL by showing the importance of inflammation and immune regulation through the IL18-IL18RAP axis and antigen presentation involving HLA-DRB1, which might help to identify potential therapeutic targets. Taken in combination with additional genetic and other risk factors, our results could potentially be used to stratify people at high risk of NKTCL for targeted prevention.
FUNDING: Guangdong Innovative and Entrepreneurial Research Team Program, National Natural Science Foundation of China, National Program for Support of Top-Notch Young Professionals, Chang Jiang Scholars Program, Singapore Ministry of Health's National Medical Research Council, Tanoto Foundation, National Research Foundation Singapore, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Recruitment Program for Young Professionals of China, First Affiliated Hospital and Army Medical University, US National Institutes of Health, and US National Cancer Institute.