No abstract

Background We sought to assess the relative effects of individual anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and grey literature (July 23, 2019) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included participants with ALK-or ROS1-positive NSCLC who received any ALK inhibitor compared with placebo, another ALK inhibitor, or the same ALK inhibitor at a different dose. The primary outcome was treatment-related death. Secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and serious adverse events. Data were pooled via meta-analysis and network meta-analysis, and risk of bias was assessed. PROSPERO: CRD42017077046. Results Thirteen RCTs reporting outcomes of interest among participants with ALK-positive NSCLC were identified. Treatment-related deaths were rare, with 10 deaths attributed to crizotinib (risk difference v. chemotherapy: 0.49, 95% credible interval [CrI]-0.16 to 1.46; odds ratio 2.58 (0.76-11.37). All ALK inhibitors improved PSF relative to chemotherapy (hazard ratio [95%

BackgroundVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major global cause of morbidity and mortality. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and fondaparinux (FDP) are frequently used to treat and prevent VTE and have a variety of safety and practical advantages over other anticoagulants, including use in outpatient settings. These medications are commonly listed on drug formularies, which act as a gateway for health plan prescription coverage by outlining the circumstances under which patients will be covered for specific drugs and drug products. Because patient access to medications is impacted by the nature of their listing on formularies, they must be rigorously reviewed and modernized as new evidence emerges.MethodsAs part of a broader drug class review team, we completed a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines to determine whether the recommendations they reported aligned with the indications listed for the coverage of LMWH and FDP in an outpatient drug formulary. Guideline quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II tool. Recommendation matrices were used to systematically compare, categorize, and summarize included recommendations.ResultsTwenty-seven guidelines were included from which 168 eligible recommendations were identified. Generally, AGREE II domains were adequately addressed; however, domain five (applicability) was poorly addressed. Most recommendations were based on moderate- to low-quality/limited evidence and reported on the use of LMWHs generally; few reported on specific agents.ConclusionsOur findings contributed to the recommendation that the formulary listing for LMWH and FDP be streamlined to include coverage for specific outpatient indications. The paucity of available evidence on the comparative efficacy of specific LMWH agents against each other and FDP limited agent-specific listing recommendations, highlighting the need for high-quality comparative studies on this topic.

Background Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects approximately 3% of adults globally. Many pharmacologic treatments options exist, yet the comparative benefits and harms of individual treatments are largely unknown. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to assess the relative effects of individual pharmacologic treatments for adults with ADHD. Methods We searched English-language published and grey literature sources for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving pharmacologic treatment of ADHD in adults (December 2018). The primary outcome was clinical response; secondary outcomes were quality of life, executive function, driving behaviour, withdrawals due to adverse events, treatment discontinuation, serious adverse events, hospitalization, cardiovascular adverse events, and emergency department visits. Data were pooled via pair-wise meta-analyses and Bayesian network meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed by use of Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool, and the certainty of the evidence was assessed by use of the GRADE framework. Results Eighty-one unique trials that reported at least one outcome of interest were included, most of which were at high or unclear risk of at least one important source of bias. Notably, only 5 RCTs were deemed at overall low risk of bias. Included pharmacotherapies were methylphenidate, atomoxetine, dexamfetamine, lisdexamfetamine, guanfacine, bupropion, mixed

IntroductionDual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is routinely given to patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stenting; however, there is ongoing debate about the optimal duration, especially in specific patient groups. In the proposed systematic review, we intend to assess the optimal duration of DAPT following PCI with stenting, with a focus on clinically relevant patient subgroups.Methods and analysisWe will perform a comprehensive search of the published literature for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of extended DAPT (>12 months) compared with short-term DAPT (6–12 months) following PCI with stenting (bare metal or drug eluting). ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP will also be searched to identify ongoing and completed clinical trials. Two independent reviewers will select studies for inclusion, and the risk of bias will be assessed by use of Cochrane’s Risk of Bias tool. The primary outcome of interest is death (all-cause, cardiovascular, non-cardiovascular). Secondary outcomes are bleeding (major, minor, gastrointestinal), urgent target vessel revascularisation, major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, stroke and stent thrombosis. Subgroup data will be sought for patients with prior myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome at presentation and diabetes, and based on smoking status and age group. Data will be analysed by random-effects meta-analysis, and separate analyses will be performed for patient subgroups. Bayesian network meta-analysis will be performed to investigate the effect of individual P2Y12 inhibitors at different DAPT durations longer than 6 months.Ethics and disseminationThis review will provide a comprehensive overview of the available evidence of the benefits and harms associated with extending DAPT beyond 12 months following PCI with stenting and the effects on clinically important subgroups. The results of this review will inform clinical and policy decisions regarding the optimal treatment duration of DAPT following PCI with stenting.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO no. CRD42018082587