Search

Background and purpose This systematic review summarised and critically appraised evidence on the efficacy and safety of interventions for anal cancer to support the panel of experts developing the national evidence-based anal cancer guideline in Germany. Materials and methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses of interventions for the treatment of stage I to III anal squamous cell carcinoma (SCCA). We systematically searched several databases and included any randomised controlled trial (RCT) assessing the pre-specified patient populations, regardless of the interventions studied. Non-randomised controlled studies of selected, pre-specified interventions were included if RCTs were not available or contained insufficient information. Where possible, we conducted meta-analyses and critically assessed confidence in the effect estimates using the GRADE approach. Results Our searches yielded 10,325 (25 October 2018) and 889 hits (update search on 18 July 2019). Among the 41 studies (47 publications) included, we identified 19 comparisons of interventions for SCCA, and confidence in the effect estimates ranged from very low to high. Most RCTs compared various chemoradiation regimes. For other treatment options, such as local excision in early stages or different radiotherapies, we mostly identified comparative cohort studies. Conclusion Our findings indicate that, in most clinical situations, primary chemoradiation based on 5-FU and MMC is still the gold standard. However, treatment options for stage I anal cancer, particularly of the anal margin, as well as newer treatment approaches should be investigated in future RCTs. Overall, our findings may help health care professionals and patients make informed decisions about treatment choices.

Objective We aimed to generate evidence on patients’ values and preferences to inform the development of the German national Evidence-based Anal Cancer Guideline. Study Design and Setting We developed a list of health outcomes based on a systematic search. We then asked anal cancer patients and experts of the guideline development group in an online survey to (a) rate the relative importance of the outcomes in different clinical situations using a nine-point, three-category scale, and (b) select seven outcomes they considered most important for decision-making in each situation. Results Participants rated almost half of the outcomes (45%) as critical for decision-making, and more than half (53%) as important. Only two outcomes (2%) were rated as low in importance. Agreement between expert and patient ratings was low to fair, and we found important discrepancies in how the relative importance of the outcomes was perceived. However, the rankings of outcomes were highly correlated. Conclusion Determining the relative importance placed by anal cancer patients on outcomes provided useful information for developing guideline recommendations. Our approach may be useful for guideline developers who aim to include the patient perspective. Moreover, our findings may help health professionals caring for anal cancer patients in joint decision-making.

Background Chronic inducible urticaria (CindU) is a condition characterized by the appearance of recurrent wheals, angioedema, or both as a response to specific and reproducible triggers. Objective We sought to systematically assess evidence on the efficacy and safety of treatment options for CindU. Results were used to inform the 2017 update of "The EAACI/GA 2 LEN/EDF/WAO guideline for the definition, classification, diagnosis and management of urticaria." Methods Randomized controlled trials and controlled intervention studies were searched systematically in various databases. Included studies were evaluated with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Where possible, results from single studies were meta-analyzed, applying the Mantel-Haenszel approach by using a random-effects model (Der Simonian–Laird). Results We identified 30 studies that included patients with cold urticaria, symptomatic dermographism, delayed-pressure urticaria, or cholinergic urticaria. No studies on other forms of CindU were eligible. Risk of bias was often rated as unclear or high. Overall, second-generation antihistamines were more effective than placebo, and available data indicate that updosing might be effective. Omalizumab proved effective in patients with symptomatic dermographism, who did not respond to antihistamines. Detailed results are given for each type of CindU. Conclusions The available evidence is limited by small samples, heterogeneous efficacy outcomes, and poor reporting quality in many of the included studies. The findings are congruent with the suggested stepwise approach to treating CindUs. However, the data do not allow for drawing specific conclusions for specific subtypes of CindU.

Psoriasis as a chronic inflammatory disease often requires effective long-term treatment; a comprehensive systematic evaluation of efficacy and safety of systemic long-term treatments in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis is lacking. Twenty-five randomized clinical trials were included. Results were pooled and quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). With respect to PASI 75 (psoriasis area and severity index), pooled risk ratios for infliximab (13.07, 95% confidence interval (CI): 8.60–19.87), secukinumab (11.97, 95% CI: 8.83–16.23), ustekinumab (11.39, 95% CI: 8.94–14.51), adalimumab (8.92, 95% CI: 6.33–12.57), etanercept (8.39, 95% CI: 6.74–10.45), and apremilast (5.83, 95% CI: 2.58–13.17) show superiority of biologics and apremilast in long-term therapy compared with placebo. With respect to the addressed safety parameters, no differences were seen between adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab versus placebo. No placebo-controlled data on conventional treatments was identified. Head-to-head studies showed superior efficacy of secukinumab and infliximab versus etanercept and of infliximab versus methotrexate. A clear ranking is limited by the lack of long-term head-to-head trials. From the available evidence, infliximab, secukinumab, and ustekinumab are the most efficacious long-term treatments. Data on conventionals are insufficient. Further head-to-head comparisons and studies on safety and patient-related outcomes are needed to draw more reliable conclusions.