Home > Search Results
  • We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information

Treats cancer, including cancer of the kidneys, pancreas, breasts, and brain. Used with other medicines to keep your body from rejecting a transplanted kidney or liver.

UsesSide effectsLatest evidence reviewsResearch summaries for consumersBrand names

Results: 1 to 20 of 58

Everolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in percutaneous coronary intervention: meta-analysis of randomized trials

Bibliographic details: Alazzoni A, Al-Saleh A, Jolly SS.  Everolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in percutaneous coronary intervention: meta-analysis of randomized trials. Thrombosis 2012; Article Number 126369 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3357603/

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet] - Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK).

Version: 2012

Head-to-head comparison of everolimus-eluting stents versus zotarolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis

Bibliographic details: Zhang XL, Li R, Wu H, Chen QH, Li GN, Xie J, Xu B.  Head-to-head comparison of everolimus-eluting stents versus zotarolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis. International Journal of Cardiology 2014; 172(1): e203-e20624480184

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet] - Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK).

Version: 2014

Risk of hematologic toxicities in patients with solid tumors treated with everolimus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of hematologic toxicities associated with everolimus, an oral mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor. Eligible studies included phase II and III trials of patients with solid tumors on 10mg of everolimus daily describing events of neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia or lymphopenia. The incidence of everolimus-associated all-grade and high-grade (Grade 3-4) hematologic toxicities were, respectively: neutropenia: 21.7% and 3.6%; thrombocytopenia: 36.0% and 4.7%; anemia: 61.2% and 8.4% and lymphopenia: 40.9% and 14.9%. Everolimus was associated with an increased risk of all-grade neutropenia (RR=2.24, [95% CI 1.51-3.32]), all-grade (RR=9.19, [95% CI 4.51-18.70]) and high-grade (RR=7.46, [95% CI 2.58-21.61]) thrombocytopenia, all-grade (RR=1.58, [95% CI 1.25-1.99]) and high-grade (RR=3.92, [95% CI 1.46-10.52]) anemia and all-grade (RR=1.72, [95% CI 1.50-1.97]) and high-grade (RR=2.70, [95% CI 1.86-3.93]) lymphopenia.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet] - Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK).

Version: 2013

Biodegradable polymer DES versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents for patients undergoing PCI: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Everolimus-eluting stents are associated with low risk of stent thrombosis and stent restenosis, and the new generation of stents with biodegradable polymer were designed to reduce that risk. However, the benefits have been variable.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet] - Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK).

Version: 2013

Incidence and risk of treatment-related mortality with mTOR inhibitors everolimus and temsirolimus in cancer patients: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Two novel mammalian targets of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors everolimus and temsirolimus are now approved by regulatory agencies and have been widely investigated among various types of solid tumors, but the risk of fatal adverse events (FAEs) with these drugs is not well defined.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet] - Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK).

Version: 2013

Everolimus-eluting versus sirolimus-eluting stents: an updated meta-analysis of randomized trials

This review concluded that everolimus-eluting stents had a similar incidence of clinical events to sirolimus-eluting stents, but they may have had a lower risk of definite stent thrombosis. The uncertain quality of the evidence, the short follow-up, and the differences in the definition and measurement times of major adverse cardiac events, limit the reliability of the results.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet] - Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK).

Version: 2012

Clinical safety and efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease

The review concluded that everolimus-eluting stents were superior to paclitaxel eluting stents for safety and efficacy at one year follow-up for patients with coronary artery disease. The authors' conclusions reflect the evidence presented, but lack of reporting of review methods and lack of quality assessment of the included trials mean the reliability of the conclusions is uncertain.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet] - Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK).

Version: 2011

Comparative efficacy of everolimus plus exemestane versus fulvestrant for hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer following progression/recurrence after endocrine therapy: a network meta-analysis

Postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer recurring/progressing on or after initial (adjuvant or first-line) endocrine therapy may be treated multiple times with one of several endocrine or combinatorial targeted treatment options before initiating chemotherapy. In the absence of direct head-to-head comparisons of these treatment options, an indirect comparison can inform treatment choice. This network meta-analysis compared the efficacy of everolimus plus exemestane with that of fulvestrant 250 and 500 mg in the advanced breast cancer setting following adjuvant or first-line endocrine therapy. The reported hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (PFS) or time to progression from six studies that formed a network to compare everolimus plus exemestane (BOLERO-2 trial) with fulvestrant were analyzed by means of a Bayesian network meta-analysis. In the primary comparison (PFS analysis based on the local review of disease progression from BOLERO-2 with the data from the other studies), everolimus plus exemestane appeared to be more efficacious than both fulvestrant 250 mg (HR = 0.47; 95 % credible interval [CrI] 0.38-0.58) and 500 mg (HR = 0.59; 95 % CrI 0.45-0.77). Similar results were obtained in an alternate comparison based on central review of disease progression from BOLERO-2 with the data from the other studies (HR = 0.40; 95 % CrI 0.31-0.51 and HR = 0.50; 95 % CrI 0.37-0.67, respectively), and in a subgroup analysis of patients who had received prior aromatase inhibitor therapy (HR = 0.47; 95 % CrI 0.38-0.58 and HR = 0.55; 95 % CrI 0.40-0.76, respectively). These results suggest that everolimus plus exemestane may be more efficacious than fulvestrant in patients with advanced breast cancer who progress on or after adjuvant or first-line therapy with a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet] - Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK).

Version: 2014

Stent thrombosis with everolimus-eluting stents: meta-analysis of comparative randomized controlled trials

The authors concluded that, compared with a pooled group of other drug-eluting stents, everolimus-eluting stents were associated with a reduction in definite stent thrombosis. This effect was found from 30 days and increased up to two years. These conclusions reflect the evidence presented. The risk of reviewer error and bias is unknown, but the conclusions seem reliable.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet] - Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK).

Version: 2012

Impact of the everolimus-eluting stent on stent thrombosis: a meta-analysis of 13 randomized trials

The authors concluded that everolimus-eluting stents were associated with a large and significant reduction in stent thrombosis compared with non-everolimus-eluting stents. Similar effects of less magnitude were found with target vessel revascularisation and myocardial infarction. The authors' conclusions should be interpreted cautiously as they over-simplify the review results (given variation in comparator subgroup results).

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet] - Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK).

Version: 2011

Everolimus-eluting versus sirolimus-eluting stents: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

The review concluded that no significant differences were found between everolimus-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents for clinical efficacy or safety, including major adverse cardiac events, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, repeat vascularisation, and definite/probable stent thrombosis combined. Given limitations in the review process limitations and the unclear quality of included trials, the reliability of these conclusions is unclear.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet] - Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK).

Version: 2011

Safety and efficacy of everolimus-versus sirolimus-eluting stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized trials

This was a generally well-conducted review which concluded that treatment with everolimus-eluting stents significantly reduced the risk of repeat revascularisation and definite stent thrombosis compared to sirolimus-eluting stents, with no significant differences in the risk of cardiac death or heart attack. Given the clinical variability across the studies and imprecision of the results, the conclusions may be overly strong.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet] - Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK).

Version: 2013

Twelve-month clinical outcomes of everolimus-eluting stent as compared to paclitaxel- and sirolimus-eluting stent in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions, A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

This well-conducted review found that treatment with everolimus-eluting stents was associated with decreased target-lesion revascularisation and myocardial infarction rates after 12 months compared with paclitaxel-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents, with similar mortality. The authors' conclusions' are likely to be reliable.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet] - Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK).

Version: 2011

The impact of everolimus versus other rapamycin derivative-eluting stents on clinical outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of 16 randomized trials

BACKGROUND: Everolimus-eluting stent (EES) are considered to have better clinical outcomes than other rapamycin derivative-eluting stents; however, the individual trials may not have sufficient power to prove it. This meta-analysis aimed to compare clinical outcomes of EES against other rapamycin derivative-eluting stents.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet] - Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK).

Version: 2014

Target of rapamycin inhibitors (TOR‐I; sirolimus and everolimus) for primary immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients

Kidney transplantation is the treatment of choice for most patients with end‐stage renal disease (ESRD). Strategies to increase donor organ availability and to prolong the transplanted kidney's survival have become priorities in kidney transplantation. This review aimed to evaluate the short and long‐term benefits and harms of sirolimus and everolimus (TOR‐I) when used in primary immunosuppressive regimens for kidney transplant recipients. Thirty three trials investigating the use of TOR‐I in four different settings were evaluated in this review. No differences in the hard‐end points of patient and graft survival were demonstrated for or against TOR‐I in any comparison. Generally surrogate endpoints for graft survival favour TOR‐I (lower risk of acute rejection and higher GFR) and surrogate endpoints for patient outcomes are worsened by TOR‐I (bone marrow suppression, lipid disturbance). Long‐term hard‐endpoint data from methodologically robust randomised trials are still needed.

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: Plain Language Summaries [Internet] - John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Version: 2009

Safety and efficacy outcomes of first and second generation durable polymer drug eluting stents and biodegradable polymer biolimus eluting stents in clinical practice: comprehensive network meta-analysis

This high quality review and network meta-analysis concluded that the newer durable polymer everolimus-ES and Resolute zotarolimus-ES and the biodegradable polymer biolimus-ES maintain the efficacy of sirolimus-ES; however, for safety endpoints, differences became apparent; everolimus-ES and Resolute zotarolimus-ES were the safest stents to date. This conclusion is likely to be reliable.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet] - Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK).

Version: 2013

Outcomes with various drug eluting or bare metal stents in patients with diabetes mellitus: mixed treatment comparison analysis of 22 844 patient years of follow-up from randomised trials

This well-conducted review concluded that, compared with bare-metal stents, the available drug-eluting stents were highly efficacious at reducing the risk of target vessel and target lesion revascularisation without compromising safety among patients with diabetes. Among the drug-eluting stents, everolimus-eluting stents were the safest and most efficacious. The authors' conclusions are likely to be reliable.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet] - Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK).

Version: 2012

Bare metal stents, durable polymer drug eluting stents, and biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents for coronary artery disease: mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis

The review concluded that biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents were superior to first generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents but not to newer generation durable polymer stents in reducing target vessel revascularization. Newer generation durable polymer stents, and especially cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents, had the best combination of efficacy and safety. These conclusions are likely to be reliable.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet] - Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK).

Version: 2013

Incidence and risk of treatment-related mortality in cancer patients treated with the mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors

BACKGROUND: Inhibition of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) is an established treatment for multiple malignancies. We carried out an up-to-date meta-analysis to determine the risk of fatal adverse events (FAEs) in cancer patients treated with mTOR inhibitors.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet] - Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK).

Version: 2013

Biodegradable-polymer drug-eluting stents vs bare metal stents vs durable-polymer drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and Bayesian approach network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of biodegradable-polymer (BP) drug-eluting stents (DES), bare metal stents (BMS), and durable-polymer DES in patients undergoing coronary revascularization, we performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis using a Bayesian framework.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet] - Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK).

Version: 2014

Systematic Reviews in PubMed

See all (175)...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...