Improvement of Paclitaxel-Associated Adverse Reactions (ADRs) via the Use of Nano-Based Drug Delivery Systems: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
adverse reaction
nano-based paclitaxel delivery systems
network meta-analysis
paclitaxel
Journal
International journal of nanomedicine
ISSN: 1178-2013
Titre abrégé: Int J Nanomedicine
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101263847
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
17
09
2019
accepted:
17
02
2020
entrez:
27
3
2020
pubmed:
27
3
2020
medline:
27
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Paclitaxel is wildly used in chemotherapy, however, the adverse drug reactions (ADRs) occurred frequently. Various novel nano-based paclitaxel delivery systems were developed. The aim performed systemically review and meta-analyses to evaluate the effect adverse drug reactions (ADRs) of paclitaxel and its nano-based delivery systems. Systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, Clinicalkey, Clinicaltrial.com, ASCO and ESMO. Data of adverse effect were analyzed to odds ratio (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The quality of studies was assessed with CASP Randomised Controlled Trial Checklist. Statistical analysis was used WinBUGS software (version 1.4.3) with the NetMetaXL interface (version 1.6.1). Twenty-one studies, including 7011 patients and 6 paclitaxel formulations fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In all grade hypersensitivity reactions, comparing to SB-P, people with Lip-P had 0.19 times (95% CI= 0.02, 1.3) of chance, with Nab-P had 0.47 times (95% CI= 0.11, 1.40) of chance, with PPX had 0.44 times (95% CI= 0.03, 5.7) of chance for all grade adverse effect. In All grad neutropenia, comparing to Lip-P, people with SB-P had 0.83 times (95% CI= 0.15, 4.81) of chance for all grade adverse effect; comparing to PM-P, people with SB-P had 0.73 times (95% CI= 0.22, 2.42) of chance for all grade adverse effect. In leucopenia, comparing to Nab-P, people with SB-P had 0.66 times (95% CI= 0.50, 0.87) of chance for all grade adverse effect; comparing to PM-P, people with SB-P had 0.64 times (95% CI= 0.32, 1.16) of chance for all grade adverse effect. The rate of incidence in peripheral sensory neuropathy, myalgias and arthralgias tend to no significant differences between different formulations. Nano-based paclitaxel delivery resulted in fewer hypersensitivity reactions than solvent-based delivery. However, the incidence of neutropenia and leucopenia was higher in nano-based than solvent-based paclitaxel delivery. Dose-dependent ADRs were more frequent in paclitaxel anticancer treatment.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Paclitaxel is wildly used in chemotherapy, however, the adverse drug reactions (ADRs) occurred frequently. Various novel nano-based paclitaxel delivery systems were developed. The aim performed systemically review and meta-analyses to evaluate the effect adverse drug reactions (ADRs) of paclitaxel and its nano-based delivery systems.
METHODS
METHODS
Systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, Clinicalkey, Clinicaltrial.com, ASCO and ESMO. Data of adverse effect were analyzed to odds ratio (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The quality of studies was assessed with CASP Randomised Controlled Trial Checklist. Statistical analysis was used WinBUGS software (version 1.4.3) with the NetMetaXL interface (version 1.6.1).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Twenty-one studies, including 7011 patients and 6 paclitaxel formulations fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In all grade hypersensitivity reactions, comparing to SB-P, people with Lip-P had 0.19 times (95% CI= 0.02, 1.3) of chance, with Nab-P had 0.47 times (95% CI= 0.11, 1.40) of chance, with PPX had 0.44 times (95% CI= 0.03, 5.7) of chance for all grade adverse effect. In All grad neutropenia, comparing to Lip-P, people with SB-P had 0.83 times (95% CI= 0.15, 4.81) of chance for all grade adverse effect; comparing to PM-P, people with SB-P had 0.73 times (95% CI= 0.22, 2.42) of chance for all grade adverse effect. In leucopenia, comparing to Nab-P, people with SB-P had 0.66 times (95% CI= 0.50, 0.87) of chance for all grade adverse effect; comparing to PM-P, people with SB-P had 0.64 times (95% CI= 0.32, 1.16) of chance for all grade adverse effect. The rate of incidence in peripheral sensory neuropathy, myalgias and arthralgias tend to no significant differences between different formulations.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Nano-based paclitaxel delivery resulted in fewer hypersensitivity reactions than solvent-based delivery. However, the incidence of neutropenia and leucopenia was higher in nano-based than solvent-based paclitaxel delivery. Dose-dependent ADRs were more frequent in paclitaxel anticancer treatment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32210563
doi: 10.2147/IJN.S231407
pii: 231407
pmc: PMC7075337
doi:
Substances chimiques
Paclitaxel
P88XT4IS4D
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1731-1743Informations de copyright
© 2020 Chou et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.
Références
Syst Rev. 2014 Sep 29;3:110
pubmed: 25267416
Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi. 2003 Mar;25(2):190-2
pubmed: 12795852
Clin Cancer Res. 2002 May;8(5):1038-44
pubmed: 12006516
J Thorac Oncol. 2008 Jun;3(6):623-30
pubmed: 18520802
Yale J Biol Med. 1991 Nov-Dec;64(6):583-90
pubmed: 1687343
Cancer Res Treat. 2018 Jan;50(1):195-203
pubmed: 28324920
Gynecol Oncol. 1999 Jan;72(1):100-1
pubmed: 9889038
Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi. 2011 Jul;33(7):517-9
pubmed: 22093629
Support Care Cancer. 2003 Mar;11(3):144-7
pubmed: 12618923
Eur J Cancer. 2006 Oct;42(15):2433-53
pubmed: 16750358
J Clin Oncol. 2004 Jun 1;22(11):2061-8
pubmed: 15169793
Pharmacogenomics. 2015;16(11):1231-41
pubmed: 26265135
Int J Nanomedicine. 2008;3(2):133-49
pubmed: 18686775
Curr Neuropharmacol. 2006 Apr;4(2):165-72
pubmed: 18615126
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995 Jul 18;92(15):6920-4
pubmed: 7624344
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013;14(4):2591-4
pubmed: 23725180
Curr Pharm Des. 2006;12(36):4669-84
pubmed: 17168771
J Nanobiotechnology. 2018 Sep 19;16(1):71
pubmed: 30231877
J Clin Oncol. 1999 Oct;17(10):3038-47
pubmed: 10506598
Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2008 May 22;60(8):886-98
pubmed: 18374448
Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Jul;49(3):569-577
pubmed: 27618821
J Control Release. 2012 Nov 10;163(3):322-34
pubmed: 22989535
ISRN Pharmacol. 2012;2012:623139
pubmed: 22934190
J Clin Oncol. 1994 Dec;12(12):2654-66
pubmed: 7989941
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016 Feb;156(1):125-34
pubmed: 26941199
Semin Oncol. 1993 Aug;20(4 Suppl 3):1-15
pubmed: 8102012
J Control Release. 2001 May 14;72(1-3):191-202
pubmed: 11389998
J Biol Chem. 1994 Feb 4;269(5):3132-4
pubmed: 7906266
J Clin Oncol. 2005 Nov 1;23(31):7794-803
pubmed: 16172456
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Mar;17(3):345-356
pubmed: 26869049
Support Care Cancer. 2009 Mar;17(3):315-20
pubmed: 18839222
Zhongguo Yi Xue Ke Xue Yuan Xue Bao. 2014 Jun;36(3):305-8
pubmed: 24997825
Clin Cancer Res. 2005 Jul 1;11(13):4843-50
pubmed: 16000582
Science. 2004 Mar 19;303(5665):1818-22
pubmed: 15031496
Int J Pharm. 2002 Mar 20;235(1-2):179-92
pubmed: 11879753
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Apr;2(4):277-287
pubmed: 28404157
Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2013 Jun;9(2):176-81
pubmed: 23176568
Pharm Res. 1996 Feb;13(2):272-8
pubmed: 8932448
Clin Lung Cancer. 2013 May;14(3):275-82
pubmed: 23290819
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Jul 20;33(21):2361-9
pubmed: 26056183
JAMA Oncol. 2018 Mar 1;4(3):302-308
pubmed: 29327055
J Support Oncol. 2003 Nov-Dec;1(4):274-8
pubmed: 15334869
Ann Oncol. 2014 Apr;25(4):824-31
pubmed: 24667715
N Engl J Med. 1995 Apr 13;332(15):1004-14
pubmed: 7885406
Pharm Res. 2000 Feb;17(2):175-82
pubmed: 10751032
Eur J Cancer. 2001 Sep;37(13):1590-8
pubmed: 11527683
Int J Nanomedicine. 2009;4:99-105
pubmed: 19516888
J Clin Oncol. 1990 Jul;8(7):1263-8
pubmed: 1972736