Liposomal daunorubicin compared to ABV for the treatment of severe Kaposi's sarcoma in HIV-infected adults (Gill 1996) – RCT
Patient or population: HIV-infected adults with severe (T1) Kaposi's sarcoma
Settings: USA
Intervention: liposomal daunorubicin
Comparison: ABV
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No. of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| ABV | Liposomal daunorubicin | |||||
| Progression of Kaposi's sarcoma | 99 per 1000 | 77 per 1000 (34 to 180) | RR 0.78 (0.34 to 1.82) | 227 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊕⊕◯ moderate1 | |
| Clinical response - complete response | 9 per 1000 | 26 per 1000 (3 to 245) | RR 2.87 (0.3 to 27.19) | 227 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊕◯ moderate1 | |
| Clinical response - partial response | 270 per 1000 | 224 per 1000 (143 to 354) | RR 0.83 (0.53 to 1.31) | 227 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊕◯ moderate1 | |
| Clinical response - overall response | 279 per 1000 | 251 per 1000 (162 to 385) | RR 0.9 (0.58 to 1.38) | 227 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊕◯ moderate1 | |
| Clinical response - stable disease | 577 per 1000 | 623 per 1000 (502 to 767) | RR 1.08 (0.87 to 1.33) | 227 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊕◯ moderate1 | |
| Adverse events | 964 per 1000 | 974 per 1000 (925 to 1000) | RR 1.01 (0.96 to 1.06) | 227 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊕◯ moderate1 | |
The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
ABV: doxorubicin, bleomycin and vincristine; CI: confidence interval; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: risk ratio
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.
There were very few events with very wide confidence intervals.