Evidence Hub

Comparative efficacy of different pharmacotherapies for muscular dystrophy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

A. D. de Almeida, Maria Eduarda Cavalcanti, F. A. Moraes, F. Westphal, Paulo Roberto Moss Lopes, F. Tamashiro, Celso de Almeida Souza Miranda, Jorge Henrique Cavalcanti Orestes Cardoso et al.

Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria, 2024

1,905 participants

Abstract

Background: Muscular dystrophies (MDs) are rare neuromuscular disorders that lead to progressive muscle degeneration and early death. MDs like Duchenne have a poor prognosis associated with an unclear preferred treatment. Despite several new agents being assessed in clinical trials, no network meta-analysis (NMA) has been conducted to date evaluating different treatment options for MDs. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized and non-randomized clinical trials testing different agents in patients with any type of MD. The NMA was performed under a Frequentist framework using RStudio software version 4.3.2 and extension packages “netmeta” and “dmetar” for all statistical analysis. Our primary outcome was the improvement in 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) and the change in time to run/walk 10 m (TTRW). The NMA pooled all the direct and indirect evidence and simultaneously compared several treatments using the network relationship through a model for continuous outcomes. Results: 17 studies and 1,905 patients were included, of whom 1,802 (94.59%) were diagnosed with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Among the included studies, 11 different drugs were evaluated for their efficacy in improving disease progression. Ataluren and drisapersen significantly increased the 6-minute walk distance in comparison with placebo: (SMD -21.08; 95% CI -23.08 to -19.08) and (SMD -12.91; 95% CI -15.32 to -10.51), respectively. Additionally, no benefit was shown with…

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: 1,905 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