SynthesisCancer medicine2024
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy for cancer cachexia: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Cancer medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy for cancer cachexia: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.Cancer medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Practical prescribing in cancer cachexia.Current opinion in supportive and palliative care · 2026Review
- Early Identification and Prognostic Stratification of Cancer Cachexia Using Explainable Machine Learning: A Multicentre Cohort Study.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2026Observational
- Second-Generation Antipsychotics for Depression in Serious Illness: A First-Line Augmentation Strategy.Journal of pain and symptom management · 2026Review
- Role of diet, physical activity and new drugs in the primary management of cancer cachexia in gastrointestinal tumors - a comprehensive review.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCancer cachexia affects more than half of all cancer patients, reducing survival rates. Evidence-based approaches are urgently needed to optimize treatment.
methodsA systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted to assess the effectiveness and safety of different pharmacotherapies for cancer cachexia. Three databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were searched for the period from January 1, 2000, to March 20, 2024. The netmeta package in R software was used to calculate the pooled effect, employing a random effects model.
resultsSeven placebo-controlled randomized trials involving 1421 patients were analyzed. Pairwise analysis showed that body weight increases were 4.6 kg (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-8.37 kg) for olanzapine, 3.82 kg (95% CI 0.73-6.91 kg) for espindolol (20 mg), 2.36 kg (95% CI 1.84-2.89 kg) for anamorelin (100 mg), and 1.31 kg (95% CI 0.42-2.19 kg) for anamorelin (50 mg). In terms of safety profiles, olanzapine demonstrated the lowest odds ratio when compared to placebo, at 0.26 (95% CI 0.07-0.94), followed by anamorelin (50 mg) at 0.86 (95% CI 0.30-2.48), and anamorelin (100 mg) at 0.89 (95% CI 0.42-1.88). However, network meta-analysis could not confirm the superiority of olanzapine over anamorelin in terms of efficacy and safety.
conclusionBoth olanzapine and anamorelin are useful in improving body weight in patients with cancer cachexia. Personalization may be helpful for different patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.