Search

Introduction: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a fatal neurogenerative disease with no effective treatment to date. Despite numerous clinical trials, the majority of studies have been futile in their effort to significantly alter the course of the disease. However, these studies may still provide valuable information for identifying patient subgroups and generating new hypotheses for future research. Additionally, synthesising evidence from these studies may help overcome the limitations of individual studies. Network meta-analysis may refine the assessment of efficacy in specific patient subgroups, evaluate intervention characteristics such as mode of administration or biological mechanisms of action, and rank order promising therapeutic areas of interest. Therefore, we aim to synthesise the available evidence from ALS clinical trials., Methods and Analysis: We will conduct a systematic review to identify all clinical trials that assessed disease-modifying pharmaceutical therapies, cell therapies, or supplements in patients with ALS. Outcomes of interest are clinical disease progression outcomes and survival. We will conduct this search in the period Q4 2024 in three databases: PubMed, Embase and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies from 1999 to 2023. Individual patient data and aggregate data will be collected and subsequentially synthesised in meta-analytical models. The final model will be presented as an open-source web application with biannual updates of the underlying data, thereby providing a 'living' overview of the ALS clinical trial landscape., Ethics and Dissemination: No ethics approvals are required. Findings will be presented at relevant conferences and submitted to peer-reviewed journals. Data will be stored anonymously in secure repositories., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To examine the comparative efficacy and complications of long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin for different patient characteristics for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM)., Design: Systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA)., Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through June 2015., Eligibility Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on adults with T1DM assessing glycosylated haemoglobin (A1c) and severe hypoglycaemia in long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin regimens., Data Extraction and Synthesis: We requested IPD from authors and funders. When IPD were not available, we used aggregate data. We conducted a random-effects model, and specifically a one-stage IPD-NMA for those studies providing IPD and a two-stage IPD-NMA to incorporate those studies not providing IPD., Results: We included 28 RCTs plus one companion report, after screening 6680 titles/abstracts and 205 full-text articles. Of the 28 RCTs, 27 studies provided data for the NMA with 7394 participants, of which 12 RCTs had IPD on 4943 participants. The IPD-NMA for A1c suggested that glargine once daily (mean difference [MD]=-0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.48 to -0.14) and detemir once daily (MD=-0.25, 95% CI: -0.41 to -0.09) were superior to neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) once daily. NPH once/two times per day improved A1c compared with NPH once daily (MD=-0.30, 95% CI: -0.50 to -0.11). Results regarding complications in severe hypoglycaemia should be considered with great caution due to inconsistency in the evidence network. Accounting for missing data, there was no evidence of inconsistency and long-acting insulin regimens ranked higher regarding reducing severe hypoglycaemia compared with intermediate-acting insulin regimens (two-stage NMA: glargine two times per day SUCRA (Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking curve)=89%, detemir once daily SUCRA=77%; one-stage NMA: detemir once daily/two times per day SUCRA=85%). Using multiple imputations and IPD only, complications in severe hypoglycaemia increased with diabetes-related comorbidities (regression coefficient: 1.03, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.03)., Conclusions: Long-acting insulin regimens reduced A1c compared with intermediate-acting insulin regimens and were associated with lower severe hypoglycaemia. Of the observed differences, only glargine once daily achieved a clinically significant reduction of 0.30%. Results should be interpreted with caution due to very low quality of evidence., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42015023511., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To examine the comparative efficacy and safety of cognitive enhancers by patient characteristics for managing Alzheimer's dementia (AD)., Design: Systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA) based on our previously published systematic review and aggregate data NMA., Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Methodology Register, CINAHL, AgeLine and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to March 2016., Participants: 80 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including 21 138 adults with AD, and 12 RCTs with IPD including 6906 patients., Interventions: Cognitive enhancers (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine) alone or in any combination against other cognitive enhancers or placebo., Data Extraction and Synthesis: We requested IPD from authors, sponsors and data sharing platforms. When IPD were not available, we used aggregate data. We appraised study quality with the Cochrane risk-of-bias. We conducted a two-stage random-effects IPD-NMA, and assessed their findings using CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis)., Primary and Secondary Outcomes: We included trials assessing cognition with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and adverse events., Results: Our IPD-NMA compared nine treatments (including placebo). Donepezil (mean difference (MD)=1.41, 95% CI: 0.51 to 2.32) and donepezil +memantine (MD=2.57, 95% CI: 0.07 to 5.07) improved MMSE score (56 RCTs, 11 619 participants; CINeMA score: moderate) compared with placebo. According to P-score, oral rivastigmine (OR=1.26, 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.94, P-score=16%) and donepezil (OR=1.08, 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.35, P-score=30%) had the least favourable safety profile, but none of the estimated treatment effects were sufficiently precise when compared with placebo (45 RCTs, 15 649 patients; CINeMA score: moderate to high). For moderate-to-severe impairment, donepezil, memantine and their combination performed best, but for mild-to-moderate impairment donepezil and transdermal rivastigmine ranked best. Adjusting for MMSE baseline differences, oral rivastigmine and galantamine improved MMSE score, whereas when adjusting for comorbidities only oral rivastigmine was effective., Conclusions: The choice among the different cognitive enhancers may depend on patient's characteristics. The MDs of all cognitive enhancer regimens except for single-agent oral rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine, against placebo were clinically important for cognition (MD larger than 1.40 MMSE points), but results were quite imprecise. However, two-thirds of the published RCTs were associated with high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data, and IPD were only available for 15% of the included RCTs., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42015023507., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)