Efficacy and safety of PARP inhibitors combined with antiangiogenic agents in the maintenance treatment of ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials
Yan Wei,Li He,Tao Liu,Tao Guo,Cong Xie,Jigang Jia,Yonghong Lin,Jiang Liu,Jiayin Fan
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2024.1372077
IF: 5.6
2024-03-22
Frontiers in Pharmacology
Abstract:Background: Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor and antiangiogenic agent monotherapy have shown to be effective as maintenance treatment in patients with ovarian cancer (OC). However, there is currently a lack of evidence-based study to directly compare the effects of combination therapy with these two drugs. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of combination therapy with PARP inhibitors and antiangiogenic agents in women with OC using a meta-analysis. Methods: An exhaustive search of literature was undertaken using multiple databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify pertinent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up until 17 December 2023. The data on progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs) were pooled. We computed the pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS and OS, along with the relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs for AEs. Trial sequential analysis, heterogeneity test, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias assessment were performed. Stata 12.0 and Software R 4.3.1 were utilized for all analyses. Results: This meta-analysis included 7 RCTs with a total of 3,388 participants. The overall analysis revealed that combination therapy of PARP inhibitors and antiangiogenic agents significantly improved PFS (HR = 0.615, 95% CI = 0.517–0.731; 95% PI = 0.379–0.999), but also increased the risk of AEs, including urinary tract infection (RR = 1.500, 95% CI = 1.114–2.021; 95% PI = 0.218–10.346), fatigue (RR = 1.264, 95% CI = 1.141–1.400; 95% PI = 1.012–1.552), headache (RR = 1.868, 95% CI = 1.036–3.369; 95% PI = 0.154–22.642), anorexia (RR = 1.718, 95% CI = 1.320–2.235; 95% PI = 0.050–65.480), and hypertension (RR = 5.009, 95% CI = 1.103–22.744; 95% PI = 0.016–1580.021) compared with PARP inhibitor or antiangiogenic agent monotherapy. Our study has not yet confirmed the benefit of combination therapy on OS in OC patients (HR = 0.885, 95% CI = 0.737–1.063). Additionally, subgroup analyses further showed that combination therapy resulted in an increased risk of AEs, encompassing thrombocytopenia, vomiting, abdominal pain, proteinuria, fatigue, headache, anorexia, and hypertension (all p < 0.05). Conclusion: Our study demonstrated the PFS benefit of combination therapy with PARP inhibitors and antiangiogenic agents in patients with OC. The OS result need to be updated after the original trial data is mature. Clinicians should be vigilant of AEs when administering the combination therapy in clinical practice. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42023494482.
pharmacology & pharmacy