Efficacy and safety of pharmacological cachexia interventions: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Abstract

AimsRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated benefits of pharmacological interventions for cachexia in improving weight and appetite. However, comparative efficacy and safety are not available. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for cachexia.MethodsPubMed, EmBase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for RCTs until October 2019. Key outcomes were total body weight (TBW) improvement, appetite (APP) score and serious adverse events. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. NMA was performed to estimate weight gain and APP score increase at 8 weeks, presented as mean difference (MD) or standardised MD with 95% CI.Results80 RCTs (10 579 patients) with 12 treatments were included. Majority is patients with cancer (7220). Compared with placebo, corticosteroids, high-dose megestrol acetate combination (Megace_H_Com) (≥400 mg/day), medroxyprogesterone, high-dose megestrol acetate (Megace_H) (≥400 mg/day), ghrelin mimetic and androgen analogues (Androgen) were significantly associated with MD of TBW of 6.45 (95% CI 2.45 to 10.45), 4.29 (95% CI 2.23 to 6.35), 3.18 (95% CI 0.94 to 5.41), 2.66 (95% CI 1.47 to 3.85), 1.73 (95% CI 0.27 to 3.20) and 1.50 (95% CI 0.56 to 2.44) kg. For appetite improvement, Megace_H_Com, Megace_H and Androgen significantly improved standardised APP score, compared with placebo. There is no significant difference in serious adverse events from all interventions compared with placebo.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that several pharmacological interventions have potential to offer benefits in treatment of cachexia especially Megace_H and short-term use corticosteroids. Nonetheless, high-quality comparative studies to compare safety and efficacy are warranted for better management of cachexia.

Changing patterns in reporting and sharing of review data in systematic reviews with meta-analysis of the effects of interventions: a meta-research study

“…For example, authors can outline in a separate file all database-specific search strategies (e.g. [45]), excluded studies at each stage of screening (e.g. [46]) and complete data for all meta-analyses (e.g.…”

Exercise medicine for cancer cachexia: targeted exercise to counteract mechanisms and treatment side effects

“…While pharmacological interventions to reduce inflammation, stimulate appetite, or reduce muscle wasting already exist (Saeteaw et al 2020 ), these should ideally be accompanied with adjunct non-pharmacological treatments, such as exercise, to amplify treatment effectiveness. Awareness that exercise as a medicine can be effective and reliable in cancer supportive care is well-established (Schmitz et al 2019 ); however, there is a lack of understanding that exercise is not a single medicine, but mode, type, dosage, and timing (exercise prescription) have distinct effects on the components of health and fitness.…”

Addressing unmet needs for people with cancer cachexia: recommendations from a multistakeholder workshop

“…These vary considerably by geographical region and society discipline, reflecting the insufficient evidence for specific interventions, low research activity, and paucity of clinical trials devoted to cachexia versus cancer overall. Indeed, few investigational drugs have been evaluated in clinical trials and with limited success 20–22 . However, a recent uptick in cachexia‐specific research has begun to yield a better understanding of its underlying pathophysiology, and clinical trials of targeted therapies have begun to increase rapidly.…”

“…Indeed, few investigational drugs have been evaluated in clinical trials and with limited success. 20 , 21 , 22 However, a recent uptick in cachexia‐specific research has begun to yield a better understanding of its underlying pathophysiology, and clinical trials of targeted therapies have begun to increase rapidly.…”