Premium
‘Efficacy and safety of imiquimod 5% cream for basal cell carcinoma: a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trial’: a critical appraisal
Author(s) -
Olabi B.,
Tasker F.,
Williams H.C.
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
british journal of dermatology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.304
H-Index - 179
eISSN - 1365-2133
pISSN - 0007-0963
DOI - 10.1111/bjd.18891
Subject(s) - imiquimod , medicine , confidence interval , relative risk , basal cell carcinoma , adverse effect , meta analysis , gastroenterology , rate ratio , randomized controlled trial , skin cancer , surgery , incidence (geometry) , dermatology , cancer , basal cell , physics , optics
Summary Aim Jia and He aimed ‘to compare the efficacy and safety of imiquimod with other treatments in patients with basal cell carcinoma’ ( BCC ). Design and inclusion criteria Meta‐analysis of studies that included patients with histologically confirmed BCC treated with imiquimod 5% cream compared with all other treatments, including vehicle, excisional surgery, cryosurgery, fluorouracil and methyl aminolaevulinate photodynamic therapy. Outcomes The main outcome measures included histological and composite clearance rates, success rates, complete response rates, tumour‐free survival and adverse events. Results Thirteen studies with a total of 4265 patients were included in the review. Pooled analyses comparing imiquimod with all or any of the listed comparators, including vehicle, demonstrated higher histological clearance rates [risk ratio ( RR ) 9·28, 95% confidence interval ( CI ) 5·56–15·5; P < 0·001], higher composite clearance rates ( RR 34·2, 95% CI 21·3, 55·1; P = 0·001), no significant difference in success rates ( RR 0·98, 95% CI 0·89–1·08; P = 0·73), higher complete response rates ( RR 3·15, 95% CI 1·55–6·38; P = 0·001), no significant difference in tumour‐free survival ( RR 1·15, 95% CI 0·98–1·35; P = 0·088) and increased incidence of adverse events ( RR 2·00, 95% CI 1·39–2·88; P < 0·001). Conclusions The authors state that ‘imiquimod significantly exhibited benefit effect in improving the histological/composite clearance rates’ compared with other treatments, and they suggest it could be used as the first‐choice treatment for patients with BCC . Comment The main concerns related to the article by Jia and He are that the research question is replicative, it makes little sense to combine all BCC types in a meta‐analysis, and it also makes no sense to combine an active treatment against a combination of vehicle and other active treatments. There are also concerns about bias related to the use of the same study data more than once in a meta‐analysis. Furthermore, we have identified an example of covert duplicate publication, which further compounds the profusion of misleading systematic reviews.