Assessment of the cod stock in NAFO Division 3M

39 páginas, 27 figuras, 21 tablas.-- Scientific council meetingAn assessment of the cod stock in NAFO Division 3M is performed. A Bayesian model, as used in the last assessments, was used to perform the analysis. Results indicat e a fairly substantial increase in SSB, reaching a value well above B lim . The six-years retrospective plot shows that the r ecruitment is overestimated every year. Three year projections indicate that fishing at the F statusquo level should allow SSB to increase slowly, although abundance will remain at levels below those observed at the beginning of the series. If the fishing mortality were return to the levels seen before 1995, stock recovery would become improbablPeer reviewe

A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Biologic Agents in the First Line Setting for Advanced Colorectal Cancer

<div><p>Background</p><p>Epithelial growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRis) and bevacizumab (BEV) are used in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared their relative efficacy on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).</p><p>Methods</p><p>We conducted a systematic review of first-line RCTs comparing (1) EGFRis vs. BEV, with chemotherapy in both arms (2) EGFRis + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone, or (3) BEV + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone, using Cochrane methodology. Data on and PFS and OS were extracted using the Parmar method. Pairwise meta-analyses and Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMA) were conducted to estimate the direct, indirect and combined PFS and OS hazard ratios (HRs) comparing EGFRis to BEV.</p><p>Results</p><p>Seventeen RCTs contained extractable data for quantitative analysis. Combining direct and indirect data using an NMA did not show a statistical difference between EGFRis versus BEV (PFS HR = 1.11 (95% CR: 0.92–1.36) and OS HR = 0.91 (95% CR: 0.75–1.09)). Direct meta-analysis (3 RCTs), indirect (14 RCTs) and combined (17 RCTs) NMA of PFS HRs were concordant and did not show a difference between EGFRis and BEV. Meta-analysis of OS using direct evidence, largely influenced by one trial, showed an improvement with EGFRis therapy (HR = 0.79 (95% CR: 0.65–0.98)), while indirect and combined NMA of OS did not show a difference between EGFRis and BEV Successive inclusions of trials over time in the combined NMA did not show superiority of EGFRis over BEV.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>Our findings did not support OS or PFS benefits of EGFRis over BEV in first-line mCRC.</p></div

Additional file 1: of Once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol versus twice daily combination therapies in asthma–mixed treatment comparisons of clinical efficacy

e-table 1: Characteristics of the studies and treatment arms included in the MTC. e-table 2: Results of mixed treatment comparisons for ICS/LABA treatments of interest (full covariate model, if available). e-table 3: Summary of findings of covariate analysis, by outcome of interest (primary analysis population; full covariate model, if available). e-table 4: Results of mixed treatment comparisons by ICS/LABA treatment. e-table 5: Posterior probability of non-inferiority for FF/VI versus other relevant ICS/LABA combination therapies*, sensitivity analysis. e-table 6: Outcomes of assessment of alternative modelling approaches. Supplementary figure 1: Networks of study treatments, by outcome of interest (sensitivity analysis population). (PDF 705 kb

Network of treatment comparisons.

<p>The numbers represent the number of studies providing the comparison between the treatment regimens. The solid and dashed lines represent direct and indirect treatment comparisons of studies included in our analysis, respectively.</p

Type and frequency of media reports between release of results and drug funding decision as of August 1, 2005

<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "External influences and priority-setting for anti-cancer agents: a case study of media coverage in adjuvant trastuzumab for breast cancer"</p><p>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/7/110</p><p>BMC Cancer 2007;7():110-110.</p><p>Published online 28 Jun 2007</p><p>PMCID:PMC1925109.</p><p></p> Drugs are arranged along X-axis in increasing time to treatment funding decision

Forest plots of hazard ratios comparing progression-free survival of EGFRis with chemotherapy versus BEV with chemotherapy.

<p>Forest plots of hazard ratios comparing progression-free survival of EGFRis with chemotherapy versus BEV with chemotherapy.</p

Forest plots of hazard ratios comparing overall survival of EGFRis with chemotherapy versus BEV with chemotherapy.

<p>Forest plots of hazard ratios comparing overall survival of EGFRis with chemotherapy versus BEV with chemotherapy.</p

Forest plots showing hazard ratios for calculated from combined comparison of: trials prior to FIRE-3, trials up to and including FIRE-3, all trials up to and including CALGB, all trials excluding FIRE-3.

<p>Forest plots showing hazard ratios for calculated from combined comparison of: trials prior to FIRE-3, trials up to and including FIRE-3, all trials up to and including CALGB, all trials excluding FIRE-3.</p

Characteristics of eligible trials.

<p>^a Given as a bolus</p><p>^b Given as an infusion</p><p>¹ Dose of BEV was 5 mg/kg</p><p>² Dose of BEV was 7.5 mg/kg</p><p>³ Dose of CET was 400 mg/m² initial dose followed by 250 mg/m² the following week</p><p>⁴ Does of PAN was 6 mg/kg every 2 weeks</p><p>The demographics included in the above table pertain only to patients included in our analysis.</p

Forest plots showing hazard ratios calculated from direct, indirect and combined analysis of EGFRis versus BEV regimens.

<p>For direct comparisons a CI was calculated, and for indirect and combined comparisons, a CR was calculated.</p