The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Our medical research library holds 7 studies published in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2003–2024). Each entry links to the study's record on PubMed and, where there is one, to the publisher's page and a free full text. 7 have an abstract, the authors' own summary as PubMed records it: open "Abstract" to read it.

About the journal

• Publisher: Wiley
• Published: 199u to the present, England
• Language: English
• ISSN: 1469-493X (electronic), 1361-6137 (undetermined)
• Its record in the NLM Catalog

2020s

• Personal protective equipment for preventing asbestos exposure in workers. L. Belackova, J.H. Verbeek, J.L. Hoving, et al. 2024;5(5):CD015158. Meta-analysis · Review PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

  Abstract

  Background: Asbestos exposure can lead to asbestos-related diseases. The European Union (EU) has adopted regulations for workplaces where asbestos is present. The EU occupational exposure limit (OEL) for asbestos is 0.1 fibres per cubic centimetre of air (f/cm3) as an eight-hour average. Different types of personal protective equipment (PPE) are available to provide protection and minimise exposure; however, their effectiveness is unclear.

  Objectives: To assess the effects of personal protective equipment (PPE), including donning and doffing procedures and individual hygienic behaviour, compared to no availability and use of such equipment or alternative equipment, on asbestos exposure in workers in asbestos demolition and repair work.

  Search Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and Scopus (September 2022), and we checked the reference lists of included studies.

  Selection Criteria: We included studies that measured asbestos concentration outside and inside PPE (considering outside concentration a surrogate for no PPE), exposure to asbestos after doffing PPE, donning and doffing errors, nonadherence to regulations, and adverse effects of PPE.

  Data Collection And Analysis: Two review authors selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using ROBINS-I. We categorised PPE as full-face filtering masks, supplied air respirators (SARs), and powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs). Values for asbestos outside and inside PPE were transformed to logarithmic values for random-effects meta-analysis. Pooled logarithmic mean differences (MDs) were exponentiated to obtain the ratio of means (RoM) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). The RoM shows the degree of protection provided by the respirators (workplace protection factor). Since the RoM is likely to be much higher at higher outside concentrations, we presented separate results according to the outside asbestos concentration, as follows. • Below 0.01 f/cm3 (band 1) • 0.01 f/cm3 to below 0.1 f/cm3 (band 2) • 0.1 f/cm3 to below 1 f/cm3 (band 3) • 1 f/cm3 to below 10 f/cm3 (band 4) • 10 f/cm3 to below 100 f/cm3 (band 5) • 100 f/cm3 to below 1000 f/cm3 (band 6) Additionally, we determined whether the inside concentrations per respirator and concentration band complied with the current EU OEL (0.1 f/cm3) and proposed EU OEL (0.01 f/cm3).

  Main Results: We identified six studies that measured asbestos concentrations outside and inside respiratory protective equipment (RPE) and one cross-over study that compared the effect of two different coveralls on body temperature. No studies evaluated the remaining predefined outcomes. Most studies were at overall moderate risk of bias due to insufficient reporting. The cross-over study was at high risk of bias. Full-face filtering masks Two studies evaluated full-face filtering masks. They provided insufficient data for band 1 and band 6. The results for the remaining bands were as follows. • Band 2: RoM 19 (95% CI 17.6 to 20.1; 1 study, 3 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 3: RoM 69 (95% CI 26.6 to 175.9; 2 studies, 17 measurements; very low certainty) • Band 4: RoM 455 (95% CI 270.4 to 765.1; 1 study, 16 measurements; low certainty) • Band 5: RoM 2752 (95% CI 1236.5 to 6063.2;1 study, 3 measurements; low certainty) The inside measurements in band 5 did not comply with the EU OEL of 0.1 f/cm3, and no inside measurements complied with the proposed EU OEL of 0.01 f/cm3. Supplied air respirators Two studies evaluated supplied air respirators. They provided no data for band 6. The results for the remaining bands were as follows. • Band 1: RoM 11 (95% CI 7.6 to 14.9; 1 study, 134 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 2: RoM 63 (95% CI 43.8 to 90.9; 1 study, 17 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 3: RoM 528 (95% CI 368.7 to 757.5; 1 study, 38 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 4: RoM 4638 (95% CI 3071.7 to 7044.5; 1 study, 49 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 5: RoM 26,134 (16,647.2 to 41,357.1; 1 study, 22 measurements; moderate certainty) All inside measurements complied with the current OEL of 0.1 f/cm3 and the proposed OEL of 0.01 f/cm3. Powered air-purifying respirators Three studies evaluated PAPRs. The results per band were as follows. • Band 1: RoM 8 (95% CI 3.7 to 19.1; 1 study, 23 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 2: RoM 90 (95% CI 64.7 to 126.5; 1 study, 17 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 3: RoM 104 (95% CI 23.1 to 464.1; 3 studies, 14 measurements; very low certainty) • Band 4: RoM 706 (95% CI 219.2 to 2253.0; 2 studies, 43 measurements; very low certainty) • Band 5: RoM 1366 (544.6 to 3428.9; 2 studies, 8 measurements; low certainty) • Band 6: RoM 18,958 (95% CI 4023.9 to 90,219.4; 2 studies, 13 measurements; very low certainty) All inside measurements complied with the 0.1 f/cm3 OEL when the outside concentration was below 10 f/cm3 (band 1 to band 4). From band 3, no measurements complied with the proposed OEL of 0.01 f/cm3. Different types of coveralls One study reported the adverse effects of coveralls. A polyethylene suit may increase the body temperature more than a ventilated impermeable polyvinyl (PVC) coverall, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD 0.17 °C, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.42; 1 study, 11 participants; very low certainty).

  Authors' Conclusions: Where the outside asbestos concentration is below 0.1 f/cm3, SARS and PAPRs likely reduce exposure to below the proposed OEL of 0.01 f/cm3. For outside concentrations up to 10 f/cm3, all respirators may reduce exposure below the current OEL, but only SAR also below the proposed OEL. In band 5 (10 to < 100 f/cm3), full-face filtering masks may not reduce asbestos exposure below either OEL, SARs likely reduce exposure below both OELs, and there were no data for PAPRs. In band 6 (100 f/cm3 to < 1000 f/cm3), PAPRs may not reduce exposure below either OEL, and there were no data for full-face filtering masks or SARs. Some coveralls may increase body temperature more than others. Randomised studies are needed to directly compare PAPRs and SARs at higher asbestos concentrations and to assess adverse effects. Future studies should assess the effects of doffing procedures.

  Copyright © 2024 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

• Drugs for preventing lung cancer in healthy people. M. Cortés-Jofré, J.R. Rueda, C. Asenjo-Lobos, et al. 2020;3(3):CD002141. Meta-analysis · Systematic review PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

  Abstract

  Background: This is the second update of this Cochrane Review. Some studies have suggested a protective effect of antioxidant nutrients and higher dietary levels of fruits and vegetables on lung cancer.

  Objectives: To determine whether vitamins and minerals and other potential agents, alone or in combination, reduce lung cancer incidence and lung cancer mortality in healthy populations.

  Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase from 1974 to May 2019 and screened references included in published studies and reviews.

  Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing vitamins or mineral supplements with placebo, administered to healthy people with the aim of preventing lung cancer.

  Data Collection And Analysis: Four review authors independently selected the trials to be included in the review, assessed their methodological quality and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and pooled results using the random-effects model. We assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' assessment tool and certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

  Main Results: In this update, we identified three new trials for a total of 12 studies. Six analysed vitamin A, three vitamin C, three combined vitamin D3 + calcium, four vitamin E combined with other products, one selenium supplements and nine studied combinations of two or more products. Four studies included only men and five only women. Vitamin A results in little to no difference in lung cancer incidence (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.19; 5 RCTs, 212314 participants; high-certainty evidence) and lung cancer mortality (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.38; 3 RCTs, 190118 participants; high-certainty evidence). But in smokers or asbestos workers vitamin A increases the risk of lung cancer incidence (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.20; 3 RCTs, 43995 participants; high-certainty evidence), lung cancer mortality (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.38; 2 RCTs, 29426 participants; high-certainty evidence) and all-cause mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.13; 2 RCTs, 32883 participants; high-certainty evidence). Vitamin A increases the risk of minor side effects, such as yellowing of the skin and minor gastrointestinal symptoms (high-certainty evidence). Vitamin C likely results in little to no difference in lung cancer incidence (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.49; 2 RCTs, 14953 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In women, vitamin C increases the risk of lung cancer incidence (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.95; 1 RCT, 7627 participants; high-certainty evidence). In men, vitamin C results in little to no difference in mortality for lung cancer (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.23; 1 RCT, 7326 participants; high-certainty evidence). Vitamin D + calcium may result in little to no difference in lung cancer incidence in postmenopausal women (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.08; 3 RCTs, 37601 women; low-certainty evidence). Vitamin E results in little to no difference in lung cancer incidence (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14; 3 RCTs, 36841 participants; high-certainty evidence) or to lung cancer mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.18; 2 RCTs, 29214 participants; high-certainty evidence), but increases the risk of haemorrhagic strokes (hazard ratio (HR), 1.74, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.91; 1 RCT, 14641 participants; high-certainty evidence). Calcium results in little to no difference in lung cancer incidence in postmenopausal women (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.18; 1 RCT, 733 participants) or in risk of renal calculi (RR 1.94, 95% CI 0.20 to 18.57; 1 RCT, 733 participants; low-certainty evidence). Selenium in men results in little to no difference in lung cancer incidence (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.54; 1 RCT, 17448 participants; high-certainty evidence) and lung cancer mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.66; 1 RCT, 17448 participants; high-certainty evidence) and increases the risk for grade 1 to 2 dermatitis (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.31; 1 RCT, 17448 participants; high-certainty evidence) and for alopecia (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.53; 1 RCT, 17448 participants; high-certainty evidence). The combination of vitamins A, C, E + selenium + zinc results in little to no difference in lung cancer incidence (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.48; 1 RCT, 12741 participants; high-certainty evidence).

  Authors' Conclusions: Well-designed RCTs have shown no beneficial effect of supplements for the prevention of lung cancer and lung cancer mortality in healthy people. Vitamin A supplements increase lung cancer incidence and mortality in smokers or persons exposed to asbestos. Vitamin C increases lung cancer incidence in women. Vitamin E increases the risk of haemorrhagic strokes.

  Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

2010s

• Antioxidant vitamin and mineral supplements for preventing age-related macular degeneration. J.R. Evans, J.G. Lawrenson. 2017;7(7):CD000253. Meta-analysis · Systematic review PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

  Abstract

  Background: There is inconclusive evidence from observational studies to suggest that people who eat a diet rich in antioxidant vitamins (carotenoids, vitamins C, and E) or minerals (selenium and zinc) may be less likely to develop age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

  Objectives: To determine whether or not taking antioxidant vitamin or mineral supplements, or both, prevent the development of AMD.

  Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 29 March 2017), Embase Ovid (1947 to 29 March 2017), AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database) (1985 to 29 March 2017), OpenGrey (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe) (www.opengrey.eu/); searched 29 March 2017, the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch); searched 29 March 2017, ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov); searched 29 March 2017 and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en); searched 29 March 2017. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials.

  Selection Criteria: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing an antioxidant vitamin or mineral supplement (alone or in combination) to control.

  Data Collection And Analysis: Both review authors independently assessed risk of bias in the included studies and extracted data. One author entered data into RevMan 5; the other author checked the data entry. We pooled data using a fixed-effect model. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

  Main Results: We included a total of five RCTs in this review with data available for 76,756 people. The trials were conducted in Australia, Finland, and the USA, and investigated vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, and multivitamin supplements. All trials were judged to be at low risk of bias.Four studies reported the comparison of vitamin E with placebo. Average treatment and follow-up duration ranged from 4 to 10 years. Data were available for a total of 55,614 participants. There was evidence that vitamin E supplements do not prevent the development of any AMD (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.06; high-certainty evidence), and may slightly increase the risk of late AMD (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.67; moderate-certainty evidence) compared with placebo. Only one study (941 participants) reported data separately for neovascular AMD and geographic atrophy. There were 10 cases of neovascular AMD (RR 3.62, 95% CI 0.77 to 16.95; very low-certainty evidence), and four cases of geographic atrophy (RR 2.71, 95% CI 0.28 to 26.0; very low-certainty evidence). Two trials reported similar numbers of adverse events in the vitamin E and placebo groups. Another trial reported excess of haemorrhagic strokes in the vitamin E group (39 versus 23 events, hazard ratio 1.74, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.91, low-certainty evidence).Two studies reported the comparison of beta-carotene with placebo. These studies took place in Finland and the USA. Both trials enrolled men only. Average treatment and follow-up duration was 6 years and 12 years. Data were available for a total of 22,083 participants. There was evidence that beta-carotene supplements did not prevent any AMD (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.14; high-certainty evidence) nor have an important effect on late AMD (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.24; moderate-certainty evidence). Only one study (941 participants) reported data separately for neovascular AMD and geographic atrophy. There were 10 cases of neovascular AMD (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.15; very low-certainty evidence) and 4 cases of geographic atrophy (RR 0.31 95% CI 0.03 to 2.93; very low-certainty evidence). Beta-carotene was associated with increased risk of lung cancer in people who smoked.One study reported the comparison of vitamin C with placebo, and multivitamin (Centrum Silver) versus placebo. This was a study in men in the USA with average treatment duration and follow-up of 8 years for vitamin C and 11 years for multivitamin. Data were available for a total of 14,236 participants. AMD was assessed by self-report followed by medical record review. There was evidence that vitamin C supplementation did not prevent any AMD (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.18; high-certainty evidence) or late AMD (RR 0.94, 0.61 to 1.46; moderate-certainty evidence). There was a slight increased risk of any AMD (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43; moderate-certainty evidence) and late AMD (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.69; moderate-certainty evidence) in the multivitamin group. Neovascular AMD and geographic atrophy were not reported separately. Adverse effects were not reported but there was possible increased risk of skin rashes in the multivitamin group.Adverse effects were not consistently reported in these eye studies, but there is evidence from other large studies that beta-carotene increases the risk of lung cancer in people who smoke or who have been exposed to asbestos.None of the studies reported quality of life or resource use and costs.

  Authors' Conclusions: Taking vitamin E or beta-carotene supplements will not prevent or delay the onset of AMD. The same probably applies to vitamin C and the multivitamin (Centrum Silver) investigated in the one trial reported to date. There is no evidence with respect to other antioxidant supplements, such as lutein and zeaxanthin. Although generally regarded as safe, vitamin supplements may have harmful effects, and clear evidence of benefit is needed before they can be recommended. People with AMD should see the related Cochrane Review on antioxidant vitamin and mineral supplements for slowing the progression of AMD, written by the same review team.

• Exercise training to improve exercise capacity and quality of life in people with non-malignant dust-related respiratory diseases. M.T. Dale, Z.J. McKeough, T. Troosters, et al. 2015;2015(11):CD009385. Meta-analysis · Systematic review PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

  Abstract

  Background: Non-malignant dust-related respiratory diseases, such as asbestosis and silicosis, are similar to other chronic respiratory diseases and may be characterised by breathlessness, reduced exercise capacity and reduced health-related quality of life. Some non-malignant dust-related respiratory diseases are a global health issue and very few treatment options, including pharmacological, are available. Therefore, examining the role of exercise training is particularly important to determine whether exercise training is an effective treatment option in non-malignant dust-related respiratory diseases.

  Objectives: To assess the effects of exercise training for people with non-malignant dust-related respiratory diseases compared with control, placebo or another non-exercise intervention on exercise capacity, health-related quality of life and levels of physical activity.

  Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro and AMED (all searched from inception until February 2015), national and international clinical trial registries, reference lists of relevant papers and we contacted experts in the field for identification of suitable studies.

  Selection Criteria: We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared exercise training of at least four weeks duration with no exercise training, placebo or another non-exercise intervention.

  Data Collection And Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. We employed the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of evidence for each outcome and to interpret findings. We synthesized study results using a random-effects model based on the assessment of heterogeneity. We conducted subgroup analyses on participants with dust-related interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) and participants with asbestos related pleural disease (ARPD).

  Main Results: Two RCTs including a combined total of 40 participants (35 from one study and five from a second study) met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-one participants were randomised to the exercise training group and 19 participants were randomised to the control group. The included studies evaluated the effects of exercise training compared to a control group of no exercise training in people with dust-related ILDs and ARPD. The exercise training programme in both studies was in an outpatient setting for an eight-week period. The risk of bias was low in both studies. There were no reported adverse events of exercise training. Following exercise training, six-minute walk distance (6MWD) increased with a mean difference (MD) of 53.81 metres (m) (95% CI 34.36 to 73.26 m). Improvements were also seen in the domains of health-related quality of life: Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ) Dyspnoea domain (MD 2.58, 95% CI 0.72 to 4.44); CRQ Fatigue domain (MD 1.00, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.89); CRQ Emotional Function domain (MD 2.61, 95% CI 0.74 to 4.49); and CRQ Mastery domain (MD 1.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.72). Improvements in exercise capacity and health-related quality of life were also evident six months following the intervention period: 6MWD (MD 52.68 m, 95% CI 27.43 to 77.93 m); CRQ Dyspnoea domain (MD 3.03, 95% CI 1.41 to 4.66); CRQ Emotional Function domain (MD 5.57, 95% CI 2.34 to 8.81); and CRQ Mastery domain (MD 2.66, 95% CI 1.08 to 4.23). Exercise training did not result in improvements in the Modified Medical Research Council (MMRC) dyspnoea scale immediately following exercise training or six months following exercise training. The improvements following exercise training were similar in a subgroup of participants with dust-related ILDs and in a subgroup of participants with ARPD compared to the control group, with no statistically significant differences in treatment effects between the subgroups.

  Authors' Conclusions: The evidence examining exercise training in people with non-malignant dust-related respiratory diseases is of very low quality. This is due to imprecision in the results from the small number of trials and the small number of participants, the indirectness of evidence due to a paucity of information on disease severity and the data from one study being from a subgroup of participants, and inconsistency from high heterogeneity in some results. Therefore, although the review findings indicate that an exercise training programme is effective in improving exercise capacity and health-related quality of life in the short-term and at six months follow-up, we remain unsure of these findings due to the very low quality evidence. Larger, high quality trials are needed to determine the strength of these findings.

• Drugs for preventing lung cancer in healthy people. M. Cortés-Jofré, J.R. Rueda, G. Corsini-Muñoz, et al. 2012;10:CD002141. Meta-analysis · Systematic review PubMed · Publisher

  Abstract

  Background: This is an updated version of the original review published in Issue 2, 2003. Some studies have suggested a protective effect of antioxidant nutrients on lung cancer. Observational epidemiological studies suggest an association between higher dietary levels of fruits and vegetables containing beta-carotene and a lower risk of lung cancer.

  Objectives: To determine whether vitamins, minerals and other potential agents, alone or in combination, reduce incidence and mortality from lung cancer in healthy people.

  Search Methods: For this update we have used a search strategy adapted from the design in the original review. The following electronic databases have been searched up to December 2011: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). References included in published studies and reviews were also screened.

  Selection Criteria: Included studies were randomised controlled clinical trials comparing different vitamins, mineral supplements or supplements with placebo, administered to healthy people with the aim of preventing lung cancer.

  Data Collection And Analysis: Two authors independently selected the trials to be included in the review, assessed the methodological quality of each trial and extracted data using a standardised form. For each study, relative risk and 95% confidence limits were calculated for dichotomous outcomes and pooled results were calculated using the random-effect model.

  Main Results: In the first version of this review four studies were included; in this review update, an additional five studies have been included. Four studies included only males and two only females; two studies included only participants considered at high risk, namely smokers or exposed to asbestos, and one study included people deficient in many micronutrients. Six studies analysed vitamin A, three vitamin C, four vitamin E, one selenium supplements, and six studied combinations of two or more products. All the RCTs included in this review were classified as being of low risk of bias.For people not at high risk of lung cancer and compared to placebo, none of the supplements of vitamins or minerals or their combinations resulted in a statistically significant difference in lung cancer incidence or mortality, except for a single study that included 7627 women and found a higher risk of lung cancer incidence for those taking vitamin C but not for total cancer incidence, but that effect was not seen in males or when the results for males and females were pooled.For people at high risk of lung cancer, such as smokers and those exposed to asbestos and compared to placebo, beta-carotene intake showed a small but statistically significant higher risk of lung cancer incidence, lung cancer mortality and for all-causes mortality.

  Authors' Conclusions: There is no evidence for recommending supplements of vitamins A, C, E, selenium, either alone or in different combinations, for the prevention of lung cancer and lung cancer mortality in healthy people. There is some evidence that the use of beta-carotene supplements could be associated with a small increase in lung cancer incidence and mortality in smokers or persons exposed to asbestos.

2000s

• Pemetrexed disodium in combination with cisplatin versus other cytotoxic agents or supportive care for the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma. J. Green, Y. Dundar, S. Dodd, et al. 2007;2007(1):CD005574. Systematic review PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

  Abstract

  Background: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a highly aggressive malignancy whose incidence is expected to increase in the United Kingdom, Western Europe, and Australia over the next 20 years as a result of occupational exposure to asbestos fibres. Surgery is feasible in only a small proportion of cases, and radiotherapy and cytotoxic chemotherapy are used in palliation. Pemetrexed is the first and only chemotherapy agent that has been granted a marketing approval for use in combination with cisplatin for the treatment of chemo-naïve patients with unresectable MPM.

  Objectives: To examine evidence on the clinical effectiveness of pemetrexed disodium used in combination with cisplatin for the treatment of unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma in chemotherapy naïve patients compared with other cytotoxic agents used alone or in combination, or supportive care.

  Search Strategy: CENTRAL (Issue 2, 2005), EMBASE (1980-2005), MEDLINE (1980-2005), HTA database (1990-2005), Web of Knowledge (1990-2005) and handsearching (including reference lists of retrieved articles and the pharmaceutical company submission to to NICE), up to October 2005.

  Selection Criteria: Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) where the use of pemetrexed disodium in combination with cisplatin is compared with other cytotoxic agents, or supportive care for the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma (or non-RCTs, in the absence of RCT data ).

  Data Collection And Analysis: Outcomes included overall survival, tumour response, progression-free survival, toxicity and quality of life. Data extraction and quality assessment of included trials was completed independently. Trial data and quality assessment were tabulated and presented narratively.

  Main Results: One RCT involving 448 patients and comparing pemetrexed plus cisplatin versus cisplatin alone for the treatment of unresectable malignant mesothelioma was included in the review. In the intention-to-treat study population, the median survival was statistically significantly longer in the combination arm of pemetrexed plus cisplatin when compared with the cisplatin alone arm. (12.1 and 9.3 months, respectively, p=0.002). The incidence of grade 3/4 toxicities was higher in the combination arm compared with the cisplatin alone arm.

  Authors' Conclusions: Pemetrexed disodium in combination with cisplatin and with folic acid and vitamin B(12 )supplementation may improve survival when used in combination with cisplatin in good performance status patients. Further studies including patients with poor performance status are needed in order to generalise the treatment findings. Further studies are also needed into the optimum chemotherapy, and a clear definition of what constitutes best supportive care.

  In plain English

  This was a Cochrane systematic review of trials of the chemotherapy drug pemetrexed combined with cisplatin in people with malignant pleural mesothelioma that could not be removed by surgery and who had not had chemotherapy before. It did not study asbestos exposure. Searches ran to October 2005. One randomised trial, EMPHACIS, met the criteria. In it, 448 patients received either pemetrexed plus cisplatin (226) or cisplatin alone (222). No studies compared pemetrexed with other regimens or with supportive care alone. In the trial's main analysis, median survival was 12.1 months with the combination and 9.3 months with cisplatin alone. Tumours partly shrank in 41.3% versus 16.7% of patients. Serious side effects, such as low white blood cell counts, were more common with the combination. Folic acid and vitamin B12 supplements lowered some of them. The authors concluded the combination with these supplements may improve survival in patients in good general condition. They noted several limits: only fitter patients took part, cisplatin alone is not universally accepted as standard care, and the doctors assessing outcomes knew which treatment patients received.

  We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

• Drugs for preventing lung cancer in healthy people. M. Caraballoso, M. Sacristan, C. Serra, et al. 2003:CD002141. Systematic review PubMed · Publisher

  Abstract

  Background: Some studies have suggested a protective effect of antioxidant nutrients on lung cancer. Observational epidemiological studies suggest an association between higher dietary levels of fruits and vegetables containing beta carotene and a lower risk of lung cancer.

  Objectives: To determine whether vitamins, minerals and other potential agents, alone or in combination, reduce incidence and mortality from lung cancer in healthy people.

  Search Strategy: The electronic databases MEDLINE (1966-july 2001), EMBASE (1974-july 2001) and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register (CENTRAL, Issue 3/2001) and bibliographies were searched. In addition authors of included studies were contacted to identify potentially eligible published and unpublished trials.

  Selection Criteria: Included studies were randomised controlled clinical trials comparing different supplements or comparing supplements with placebo, administered to healthy people with the aim of preventing lung cancer.

  Data Collection And Analysis: Three reviewers independently selected the trials to be included in the review and assessed the methodological quality of each trial, and two extracted data using a standardised form. For each study, relative risk and 95% confidence limits were calculated for dichotomous outcomes.

  Main Results: Four studies were eligible for inclusion. All were population based trials, including a total of 109,394 participants. Two studies included smokers, one included workers exposed to asbestos and two studies were carried out in health professionals. A group of participants with no known risk factors for lung cancer was included in the study sample of two trials. Beta-carotene was evaluated in all trials, alone or combination with alpha-tocopherol or retinol, and one study tested alpha-tocopherol alone. Duration of treatment varied from 2 to 12 years and follow-up was from two to five years. All trials had a placebo group. For people with risk factors for lung cancer no reduction in lung cancer incidence or mortality was found in those taking vitamins alone compared with placebo (incidence of lung cancer: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81-1.19; lung cancer mortality: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.73-1.19). For people with no known risk factors of lung cancer, none of the vitamins or their combinations appeared to have any effect. Combined data from three studies showed a non-statistically significant increased risk of lung cancer incidence (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.94-1.33) and mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.87-1.28) for beta-carotene alone at pharmacological doses in groups with risk factors for lung cancer. When beta-carotene was combined with retinol, data from a single study showed that there was a statistically significant, increased risk of lung cancer incidence (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.13-1.80) and mortality (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.29-2.38) in people with risk factors for lung cancer who took both vitamins compared with those who took placebo. Data from also from one study showed that the combination of beta-carotene with alpha-tocopherol in people with risk factors for lung cancer was associated with a non-statistically significant increased risk of lung cancer incidence (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.96-1.39) and mortality (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.91-1.45). No effect was observed for total cancer incidence, mortality or all-cause mortality.

  Reviewer'S Conclusions: There is currently no evidence to support recommending vitamins such as alpha-tocopherol, beta-carotene or retinol, alone or in combination, to prevent lung cancer. A harmful effect was found for beta-carotene with retinol at pharmacological doses in people with risk factors for lung cancer (smoking and/or occupational exposure to asbestos). More research from larger trials and with longer follow-up is needed to analyse the effectiveness of other supplements.

Browse every journal in the library or the library by type of article, or return to medical research.