A Randomized Controlled Trial Plus a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Published Studies Evaluating a Conventional Prophylactic Regimen of Oral Dexamethasone vs Short-Course Intravenous Dexamethasone in Preventing Paclitaxel-Associated Hypersensitivity Reactions in Patients With Gynecologic Malignancies.

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Kofi N Donkor, Hyeree Jang, Julie Hana Selim, Yevgeniya J Ioffe, Linda J Hong
{"title":"A Randomized Controlled Trial Plus a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Published Studies Evaluating a Conventional Prophylactic Regimen of Oral Dexamethasone vs Short-Course Intravenous Dexamethasone in Preventing Paclitaxel-Associated Hypersensitivity Reactions in Patients With Gynecologic Malignancies.","authors":"Kofi N Donkor, Hyeree Jang, Julie Hana Selim, Yevgeniya J Ioffe, Linda J Hong","doi":"10.1177/10600280251320067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) are often encountered in patients receiving paclitaxel infusions. The conventional method, comprising dexamethasone 20 mg (Dex20) taken 12 and 6 hours before paclitaxel plus histamine (H)1 and H2-antagonists administered 30 minutes before paclitaxel, is an effective but cumbersome method in reducing HSRs in gynecologic oncology patients.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Determine the effectiveness of a simplified premedication method (short-course) comprising Dex20 and H1 and H2 antagonists administered 30 minutes before paclitaxel vs the conventional method in preventing HSRs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The effectiveness of the short-course vs the conventional method was investigated via a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) and a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis by searching PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception to December 4, 2024. Primary outcomes were any-grade and grade ≥3 HSRs. Differences in effectiveness were presented as risk difference (RD) using the Mantel-Haenszel estimation and expressed with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). <i>P</i>-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews and Newcastle-Ottawa Score determined the quality of RCTs and observational studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three RCTs and 2 observational studies totaling 905 patients were analyzed. The short-course method showed a significantly higher incidence of any-grade HSRs than the conventional method (RD = 7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.3% to 12.8%, <i>P</i> = 0.04). Although in favor of the conventional method, there was no significant difference in grade ≥3 HSRs (RD = 2%, 95% CI = -0.4% to 4.8%, <i>P</i> = 0.09). Subgroup analyses of RCTs showed no significant differences in any-grade HSRs (RD = 6%, 95% CI = 0.3% to 12.8%, <i>P</i> = 0.39) or grade ≥3 HSRs (RD = 1%, 95% CI = -1.1% to 2.4%, <i>P</i> = 0.48).</p><p><strong>Conclusion and relevance: </strong>The conventional method is favored over the short-course in preventing paclitaxel-associated HSRs. The short-course method is a plausible alternative for patients unable to comply with the conventional method's requirements. Included studies were either observational studies prone to bias and inconclusive inferences or RCTs, which may not be statistically powerful enough to produce reliable results. Larger sample size prospective studies are needed to authenticate findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":7933,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Pharmacotherapy","volume":" ","pages":"10600280251320067"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Pharmacotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10600280251320067","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) are often encountered in patients receiving paclitaxel infusions. The conventional method, comprising dexamethasone 20 mg (Dex20) taken 12 and 6 hours before paclitaxel plus histamine (H)1 and H2-antagonists administered 30 minutes before paclitaxel, is an effective but cumbersome method in reducing HSRs in gynecologic oncology patients.

Objective: Determine the effectiveness of a simplified premedication method (short-course) comprising Dex20 and H1 and H2 antagonists administered 30 minutes before paclitaxel vs the conventional method in preventing HSRs.

Methods: The effectiveness of the short-course vs the conventional method was investigated via a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) and a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis by searching PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception to December 4, 2024. Primary outcomes were any-grade and grade ≥3 HSRs. Differences in effectiveness were presented as risk difference (RD) using the Mantel-Haenszel estimation and expressed with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). P-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews and Newcastle-Ottawa Score determined the quality of RCTs and observational studies.

Results: Three RCTs and 2 observational studies totaling 905 patients were analyzed. The short-course method showed a significantly higher incidence of any-grade HSRs than the conventional method (RD = 7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.3% to 12.8%, P = 0.04). Although in favor of the conventional method, there was no significant difference in grade ≥3 HSRs (RD = 2%, 95% CI = -0.4% to 4.8%, P = 0.09). Subgroup analyses of RCTs showed no significant differences in any-grade HSRs (RD = 6%, 95% CI = 0.3% to 12.8%, P = 0.39) or grade ≥3 HSRs (RD = 1%, 95% CI = -1.1% to 2.4%, P = 0.48).

Conclusion and relevance: The conventional method is favored over the short-course in preventing paclitaxel-associated HSRs. The short-course method is a plausible alternative for patients unable to comply with the conventional method's requirements. Included studies were either observational studies prone to bias and inconclusive inferences or RCTs, which may not be statistically powerful enough to produce reliable results. Larger sample size prospective studies are needed to authenticate findings.

一项随机对照试验加上一项系统评价和荟萃分析已发表的研究,评估常规预防方案口服地塞米松与短疗程静脉地塞米松在预防妇科恶性肿瘤患者紫杉醇相关超敏反应中的作用。
背景:紫杉醇输注患者常发生过敏反应(HSRs)。常规方法是在紫杉醇前12和6小时服用地塞米松20mg (Dex20),在紫杉醇前30分钟服用组胺(H)1和h2拮抗剂,这是一种有效但繁琐的降低妇科肿瘤患者hsr的方法。目的:确定简化药前方法(短疗程)包括Dex20和H1和H2拮抗剂在紫杉醇前30分钟给药与常规方法预防hsr的有效性。方法:通过随机对照试验(RCT)、系统评价和荟萃分析,检索PubMed、EMBASE和Cochrane图书馆自成立至2024年12月4日的数据,对短疗程与常规方法的有效性进行研究。主要结局为任意级和≥3级hsr。有效性差异采用Mantel-Haenszel估计表示为风险差异(RD),并以95%置信区间(ci)表示。p值结果:分析了3项随机对照试验和2项观察性研究,共905例患者。短疗程方法的任何级别HSRs发生率均明显高于常规方法(RD = 7%, 95%可信区间[CI] = 0.3% ~ 12.8%, P = 0.04)。虽然支持常规方法,但≥3级HSRs的差异无统计学意义(RD = 2%, 95% CI = -0.4% ~ 4.8%, P = 0.09)。随机对照试验的亚组分析显示,任何级别HSRs (RD = 6%, 95% CI = 0.3% ~ 12.8%, P = 0.39)或≥3级HSRs (RD = 1%, 95% CI = -1.1% ~ 2.4%, P = 0.48)均无显著差异。结论及意义:常规方法在预防紫杉醇相关性HSRs方面优于短期方法。对于不能满足常规方法要求的患者,短期方法是一种可行的替代方法。纳入的研究要么是容易产生偏倚和不确定推断的观察性研究,要么是随机对照试验,这些研究在统计上可能不够强大,无法产生可靠的结果。需要更大样本量的前瞻性研究来验证研究结果。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
166
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of Pharmacotherapy (AOP) is a peer-reviewed journal that advances pharmacotherapy throughout the world by publishing high-quality research and review articles to achieve the most desired health outcomes.The articles provide cutting-edge information about the most efficient, safe and cost-effective pharmacotherapy for the treatment and prevention of various illnesses. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Average time from submission to first decision: 14 days
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信