4.3 Article

Treatment-related mortality with aflibercept in cancer patients: a meta-analysis

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 70, 期 4, 页码 461-467

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-013-1633-2

关键词

Cancer; Fatal adverse events; Aflibercept; Meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aflibercept, a fully humanized vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted agent, has emerged as an effective therapy in the treatment of various solid tumors. We carried out an up-to-date meta-analysis to determine the risk of fatal adverse events (FAEs) in cancer patients treated with aflibercept. We searched databases such as PubMed and Web of Science, and abstracts presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) meetings for records up to August 2013 to identify relevant studies. Eligible studies included prospective phase II and III trials evaluating aflibercept in cancer patients with adequate data on FAEs. Statistical analyses were conducted to calculate the summary incidence, odds ratio (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) by using either random effects or fixed-effect models according to the heterogeneity of included studies. A total of 3,060 patients with a variety of solid tumors from ten clinical trials were included in our analysis. The overall incidence of FAEs associated with aflibercept was 5.1 % (95%CI: 3.8-6.8 %). The use of aflibercept significantly increased the risk of FAEs compared to patients treated with control medication (OR 1.81, 95 % CI: 1.20-2.72, p = 0.004). Additionally, the most common causes of FAEs were infection (38.8 %), hemorrhage (5.9 %) and GI perforation (5.9 %), respectively. With available evidence, the use of aflibercept is associated with an increased risk of FAEs compared to controls. Further studies are still needed to investigate this association. In the appropriate clinical scenario, the use of aflibercept remains justified in its approved indications.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据