Evidence Hub

Efficacy and safety of cardioprotective drugs in chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity: an updated systematic review & network meta-analysis

A. Mir, Yasra Badi, Seif Bugazia, Anas Zakarya Nourelden, A. Fathallah, K. Ragab, M. Alsillak, S. Elsayed et al.

Cardio-Oncology, 2023

3,285 participants · 46 citations

Abstract

Background Cancer patients receiving chemotherapy have an increased risk of cardiovascular complications. This limits the widespread use of lifesaving therapies, often necessitating alternate lower efficacy regimens, or precluding chemotherapy entirely. Prior studies have suggested that using common cardioprotective agents may attenuate chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity. However, small sample sizes and conflicting outcomes have limited the clinical significance of these results. Hypothesis A comprehensive network meta-analysis using updated and high-quality data can provide more conclusive information to assess which drug or drug class has the most significant effect in the management of chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity. Methods We performed a literature search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of cardioprotective agents in patients with chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity. We used established analytical tools (netmeta package in RStudio) and data extraction formats to analyze the outcome data. To obviate systematic bias in the selection and interpretation of RCTs, we employed the validated Cochrane risk-of-bias tools. Agents included were statins, aldosterone receptor antagonists (MRAs), ACEIs, ARBs, and beta-blockers. Outcomes examined were improvement in clinical and laboratory parameters of cardiac function including a decreased reduction in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), clinical HF, troponin-I, and B-natriuretic peptide…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 3,285 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free