-
Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular... Sep 2022The clinical efficacy of corticosteroids remains unclear. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the use of high-dose versus low-... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
The clinical efficacy of corticosteroids remains unclear. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the use of high-dose versus low- dose corticosteroids on the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
Electronic search for randomized controlled trials and observational studies (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL).
PARTICIPANTS
Hospitalized adults ≥ 18 years old who were SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive.
INTERVENTIONS
High-dose and low-dose corticosteroids.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS
A total of twelve studies (n=2759 patients) were included in this review. The pooled analysis demonstrated no significant difference in mortality rate between the high-dose and low-dose corticosteroids groups (n=2632; OR: 1.07 [95%CI 0.67, 1.72], p=0.77, I=76%, trial sequential analysis=inconclusive). No significant differences were observed in the incidence of intensive care unit (ICU) admission rate (n=1544; OR: 0.77[95%CI 0.43, 1.37], p=0.37, I= 72%), duration of hospital stay (n=1615; MD: 0.53[95%CI -1.36, 2.41], p=0.58, I=87%), respiratory support (n=1694; OR: 1.51[95%CI 0.77, 2.96], p=0.23, I=84%), duration of mechanical ventilation (n=419; MD: -1.44[95%CI -4.27, 1.40], p=0.32, I=93%), incidence of hyperglycemia (n=516, OR: 0.91[95%CI 0.58, 1.43], p=0.68, I=0%) and infection rate (n=1485, OR: 0.86[95%CI 0.64, 1.16], p=0.33, I=29%).
CONCLUSION
The meta-analysis demonstrated high-dose corticosteroids did not reduce mortality rate. However, high-dose corticosteroids did not pose higher risk of hyperglycemia and infection rate for COVID-19 patients. Due to the inconclusive trial sequential analysis, substantial heterogeneity and low level of evidence, future large-scale randomized clinical trials are warranted to improve the certainty of evidence for the use of high-dose compared to low-dose corticosteroids in COVID-19 patients.
Topics: Adolescent; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; COVID-19; Humans; Hyperglycemia; Respiration, Artificial; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 35715291
DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2022.05.011 -
Journal of Medical Virology Jun 2022We analyzed published studies on the efficacy and safety of the third dose of the COVID-19 vaccine in various general population settings. We conducted systematic...
We analyzed published studies on the efficacy and safety of the third dose of the COVID-19 vaccine in various general population settings. We conducted systematic searches of PubMed and EMBASE for series published in the English language through November 15, 2021, using the search terms "third" or "booster" or "three" and "dose" and "COVID-19" or "SARS-CoV-2." All articles were selected according to the MOOSE guidelines. The seroconversion risk after third doses was descriptively expressed as a pooled rate ratio ([seroconversion rate after the third dose]/[seroconversion rate after the second dose]). The search returned 30 studies that included a total of 2 734 437 vaccinated subjects. In more than 2 700 000 Israeli patients extracted from the general population, the reduction in the risk of infection ranged from 88% to 92%. Conversion rates for IgG anti-spike ranged from 95% to 100%. In cancer or immunocompromised patients, mean IgG seroconversion was 39.4% before and 66.6% after third doses. A third dose seems necessary to protect against all COVID-19 infection, severe disease, and death risk.
Topics: Antibodies, Viral; COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Humans; Immunoglobulin G; SARS-CoV-2; Seroconversion
PubMed: 35118680
DOI: 10.1002/jmv.27644 -
Seizure Nov 2022Perampanel a third-generation antiseizure medication, belongs to a new promising class of drugs called AMPA receptor antagonists, approved to treat focal-onset seizures... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Perampanel a third-generation antiseizure medication, belongs to a new promising class of drugs called AMPA receptor antagonists, approved to treat focal-onset seizures with or without focal to bilateral tonic clonic seizures and primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures.
METHODS
This review included RCTs on patients with epilepsy exposed to perampanel compared with placebo, or one or more pre-existing antiseizure medications. Four databases and two clinical trial registries were searched from inception to July 2021. Included outcomes were 50% responder rate, seizure-free rate, discontinuation due to treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE)s, having any TEAEs, and most reported TEAEs. Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the internal validity of the included RCTs.
RESULTS
From 2211 retrieved citations, eight RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Fifty-percent responder and seizure freedom rates were significantly higher in patients receiving perampanel when compared to placebo (RR 1.57, 95 % CI 1.35 to 1.82, I 15% and RR 2.79, 95% CI 1.58 to 4.93, I 7%, respectively). The 50% responder rates for 8mg and 12 mg, when compared to placebo, were similar. The most-reported TEAEs were dizziness and somnolence with <1% reporting serious psychological outcomes.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review reports significant reduction in seizures and a potential dose-based increase in discontinuations due to TEAE. The most-reported TEAEs were non-threatening, with the possibility of rare but serious adverse psychological outcomes. Further independent RCTs studying the most efficient dose for efficacy and safety are needed.
Topics: Humans; Anticonvulsants; Treatment Outcome; Pyridones; Seizures; Epilepsy; Drug Therapy, Combination; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36206645
DOI: 10.1016/j.seizure.2022.09.020 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jan 2015To evaluate potential linear and non-linear dose-response relations between blood glucose and risk of pancreatic cancer. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate potential linear and non-linear dose-response relations between blood glucose and risk of pancreatic cancer.
DESIGN
Systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective observational studies.
DATA SOURCES
Search of PubMed, Scopus, and related reviews before 30 November 2013 without language restriction.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Prospective studies evaluating the association between blood glucose concentration and pancreatic cancer. Retrospective and cross sectional studies excluded to avoid reverse causality.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently extracted relevant information and assessed study quality with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Random effects dose-response meta-analysis was conducted to assess potential linear and non-linear dose-response relations.
RESULTS
Nine studies were included for analysis, with a total of 2408 patients with pancreatic cancer. There was a strong linear dose-response association between fasting blood glucose concentration and the rate of pancreatic cancer across the range of prediabetes and diabetes. No non-linear association was detected. The pooled rate ratio of pancreatic cancer per 0.56 mmol/L (10 mg/dL) increase in fasting blood glucose was 1.14 (95% confidence interval 1.06 to 1.22; P<0.001) without significant heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis excluding blood glucose categories in the range of diabetes showed similar results (pooled rate ratio per 0.56 mmol/L increase in fasting blood glucose was 1.15, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.27; P=0.003), strengthening the association between prediabetes and pancreatic cancer.
CONCLUSIONS
Every 0.56 mmol/L increase in fasting blood glucose is associated with a 14% increase in the rate of pancreatic cancer. As prediabetes can be improved or even reversed through lifestyle changes, early detection of prediabetes coupled with lifestyle changes could represent a viable strategy to curb the increasing incidence of pancreatic cancer.
Topics: Biometry; Blood Glucose; Early Diagnosis; Health Behavior; Humans; Hyperglycemia; Observational Studies as Topic; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Prediabetic State; Risk Factors; Statistics as Topic
PubMed: 25556126
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g7371 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2021Acute limb ischaemia usually is caused by a blood clot blocking an artery or a bypass graft. Severe acute ischaemia will lead to irreversible damage to muscles and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Acute limb ischaemia usually is caused by a blood clot blocking an artery or a bypass graft. Severe acute ischaemia will lead to irreversible damage to muscles and nerves if blood flow is not restored in a few hours. Once irreversible damage occurs, amputation will be necessary and the condition can be life-threatening. Infusion of clot-busting drugs (thrombolysis) is a useful tool in the management of acute limb ischaemia. Fibrinolytic drugs are used to disperse blood clots (thrombi) to clear arterial occlusion and restore blood flow. Thrombolysis is less invasive than surgery. A variety of techniques are used to deliver fibrinolytic agents. This is an update of a review first published in 2004.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effects of infusion techniques during peripheral arterial thrombolysis for treatment of patients with acute limb ischaemia.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registries to 20 October 2020. We undertook reference checking to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing infusion techniques for fibrinolytic agents in the treatment of acute limb ischaemia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. We assessed the risk of bias in included trials using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We evaluated certainty of evidence using GRADE. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the odds ratio (OR) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). We were not able to carry out meta-analyses due to clinical heterogeneity, so we have reported the results and performed the comparisons narratively. The main outcomes of interest were amputation-free survival or limb salvage, amputation, mortality, vessel patency, duration of thrombolysis, and complications such as cerebrovascular accident and major and minor bleeding.
MAIN RESULTS
Nine studies with a total of 671 participants are included in this update. Trials covered a variety of infusion techniques, dosage regimens, and adjunctive agents. We grouped trials according to types of techniques assessed (e.g. intravenous and intra-arterial delivery of the agent, 'high-' and 'low-dose' regimens of the agent, continuous infusion and 'forced infusion' of the agent, use of adjunctive antiplatelet agents). We assessed the certainty of evidence as very low to low due to the limited power of individual studies to deliver clinically relevant results, small and heterogeneous study populations, use of different inclusion criteria by each study in terms of severity and duration of ischaemia, considerably different outcome measures between trials, and use of different fibrinolytic agents. This heterogeneity prevented pooling of data in meta-analyses. No regimen has been shown to confer benefit in terms of amputation-free survival (at 30 days), amputation, or death. For vessel patency, complete success was more likely with intra-arterial (IA) than with intravenous (IV) infusion (odds ratio (OR) 13.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.79 to 62.67; 1 study, 40 participants; low-certainty evidence); radiological failure may be more likely with IV infusion (OR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.38; 1 study, 40 participants; low-certainty evidence). Due to the small numbers involved in each arm and design differences between arms, it is not possible to conclude whether any technique offered any advantage over another. None of the treatment strategies clearly affected complications such as cerebrovascular accident or major bleeding requiring surgery or blood transfusion. Minor bleeding complications were more frequent in systemic (intravenous) therapy compared to intra-arterial infusion (OR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.56; 1 study, 40 participants), and in high-dose compared to low-dose therapy (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.96; 1 study, 63 participants). Limited evidence from individual trials appears to indicate that high-dose and forced-infusion regimens reduce the duration of thrombolysis. In one trial, the median duration of infusion was 4 hours (range 0.25 to 46) for the high-dose group and 20 hours (range 2 to 46) for the low-dose group. In a second trial, treatment using pulse spray was continued for a median of 120 minutes (range 40 to 310) compared with low-dose infusion for a median of 25 hours (range 2 to 60). In a third trial, the median duration of therapy was reduced with pulse spray at 195 minutes (range 90 to 1260 minutes) compared to continuous infusion at 1390 minutes (range 300 to 2400 minutes). However, none of the studies individually showed improvement in limb salvage at 30 days nor benefit for the amputation rate related to the technique of drug delivery. Similarly, no studies reported a clear difference in occurrence of cerebrovascular accident or major bleeding. Although 'high-dose' and 'forced-infusion' techniques achieved vessel patency in less time than 'low-dose' infusion, more minor bleeding complications may be associated (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.96; 1 study, 72 participants; and OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.32; 1 study, 121 participants, respectively). Use of adjunctive platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists did not improve outcomes, and results were limited by inclusion of participants with non-limb-threatening ischaemia.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to show that any thrombolytic regimen provides a benefit over any other in terms of amputation-free survival, amputation, or 30-day mortality. The rate of CVA or major bleeding requiring surgery or blood transfusion did not clearly differ between regimens but may occur more frequently in high dose and IV regimens. This evidence was limited and of very low certainty. Minor bleeding may be more common with high-dose and IV regimens. In this context, thrombolysis may be an acceptable therapy for patients with marginally threatened limbs (Rutherford grade IIa) compared with surgery. Caution is advised for patients who do not have limb-threatening ischaemia (Rutherford grade I) because of risks of major haemorrhage, cerebrovascular accident, and death from thrombolysis.
Topics: Amputation, Surgical; Arteries; Fibrinolytic Agents; Humans; Ischemia; Thrombolytic Therapy
PubMed: 34786692
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000985.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2016Many antihypertensive agents exist today for the treatment of primary hypertension (systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90 mmHg, or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Many antihypertensive agents exist today for the treatment of primary hypertension (systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90 mmHg, or both). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been carried out to investigate the evidence for these agents. There is, for example, strong RCT evidence that thiazides reduce mortality and morbidity. Some of those trials used reserpine as a second-line therapy. However, the dose-related blood pressure reduction with this agent is not known.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of this review was to quantify the dose-related efficacy of reserpine versus placebo or no treatment in reducing systolic blood pressure (SBP) or diastolic blood pressure (DBP), or both.We also aimed to evaluate the dose-related effects of reserpine on mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR), as well as the dose-related effects on withdrawals due to adverse events.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Group Specialised Register (January 1946 to October 2016), CENTRAL (2016, Issue 10), MEDLINE (January 1946 to October 2016), Embase (January 1974 to October 2016), and ClinicalTrials.gov (all dates to October 2016). We also traced citations in the reference sections of the retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Included studies were truly randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing reserpine monotherapy to placebo or no treatment in participants with primary hypertension.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We assessed methods of randomisation and concealment. We extracted and analysed data on blood pressure reduction, heart rate, and withdrawal due to adverse effects.
MAIN RESULTS
We found four RCTs (with a total of 237 participants) that met the inclusion criteria, none of which we found through the 2016 update search. The overall pooled effect demonstrates a statistically significant systolic blood pressure (SBP) reduction in participants taking reserpine compared with placebo (weighted mean difference (WMD) -7.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) -14.05 to -1.78). Because of significant heterogeneity across the trials, a significant effect in diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and heart rate (HR) could not be found. A dose of reserpine 0.5 mg/day or greater achieved the SBP effects. However, we could not determine the dose-response pattern because of the small number of trials. We did not combine data from the trial that investigated Rauwiloid against placebo with reserpine data from the remaining three trials. This is because Rauwiloid is a different alkaloid extract of the plant Rauwolfia serpentina, and the dose used is not comparable to reserpine. None of the included trials reported withdrawals due to adverse effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Reserpine is effective in reducing SBP roughly to the same degree as other first-line antihypertensive drugs. However, we could not make definite conclusions regarding the dose-response pattern because of the small number of included trials. More RCTs are needed to assess the effects of reserpine on blood pressure and to determine the dose-related safety profile before the role of this drug in the treatment of primary hypertension can be established.
Topics: Antihypertensive Agents; Blood Pressure; Heart Rate; Humans; Hypertension; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rauwolfia; Reserpine
PubMed: 27997978
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007655.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2017Emergency contraception (EC) is using a drug or copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) to prevent pregnancy shortly after unprotected intercourse. Several interventions are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Emergency contraception (EC) is using a drug or copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) to prevent pregnancy shortly after unprotected intercourse. Several interventions are available for EC. Information on the comparative effectiveness, safety and convenience of these methods is crucial for reproductive healthcare providers and the women they serve. This is an update of a review previously published in 2009 and 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To determine which EC method following unprotected intercourse is the most effective, safe and convenient to prevent pregnancy.
SEARCH METHODS
In February 2017 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Popline and PubMed, The Chinese biomedical databases and UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank Special Programme on Human Reproduction (HRP) emergency contraception database. We also searched ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov as well as contacting content experts and pharmaceutical companies, and searching reference lists of appropriate papers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials including women attending services for EC following a single act of unprotected intercourse were eligible.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was observed number of pregnancies. Side effects and changes of menses were secondary outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 115 trials with 60,479 women in this review. The quality of the evidence for the primary outcome ranged from moderate to high, and for other outcomes ranged from very low to high. The main limitations were risk of bias (associated with poor reporting of methods), imprecision and inconsistency. Comparative effectiveness of different emergency contraceptive pills (ECP)Levonorgestrel was associated with fewer pregnancies than Yuzpe (estradiol-levonorgestrel combination) (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.84, 6 RCTs, n = 4750, I = 23%, high-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy using Yuzpe is assumed to be 29 women per 1000, the chance of pregnancy using levonorgestrel would be between 11 and 24 women per 1000.Mifepristone (all doses) was associated with fewer pregnancies than Yuzpe (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.41, 3 RCTs, n = 2144, I = 0%, high-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy following Yuzpe is assumed to be 25 women per 1000 women, the chance following mifepristone would be between 1 and 10 women per 1000.Both low-dose mifepristone (less than 25 mg) and mid-dose mifepristone (25 mg to 50 mg) were probably associated with fewer pregnancies than levonorgestrel (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.99, 14 RCTs, n = 8752, I = 0%, high-quality evidence; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.83, 27 RCTs, n = 6052, I = 0%, moderate-quality evidence; respectively). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy following levonorgestrel is assumed to be 20 women per 1000, the chance of pregnancy following low-dose mifepristone would be between 10 and 20 women per 1000; and that if the chance of pregnancy following levonorgestrel is assumed to be 35 women per 1000, the chance of pregnancy following mid-dose mifepristone would be between 16 and 29 women per 1000.Ulipristal acetate (UPA) was associated with fewer pregnancies than levonorgestrel (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.99, 2 RCTs, n = 3448, I = 0%, high-quality evidence). Comparative effectiveness of different ECP dosesIt was unclear whether there was any difference in pregnancy rate between single-dose levonorgestrel (1.5 mg) and the standard two-dose regimen (0.75 mg 12 hours apart) (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.33, 3 RCTs, n = 6653, I = 0%, moderate-quality evidence).Mid-dose mifepristone was associated with fewer pregnancies than low-dose mifepristone (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97, 25 RCTs, n = 11,914, I = 0%, high-quality evidence). Comparative effectiveness of Cu-IUD versus mifepristoneThere was no conclusive evidence of a difference in the risk of pregnancy between the Cu-IUD and mifepristone (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.74, 2 RCTs, n = 395, low-quality evidence). Adverse effectsNausea and vomiting were the main adverse effects associated with emergency contraception. There is probably a lower risk of nausea (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.76, 3 RCTs, n = 2186 , I = 59%, moderate-quality evidence) or vomiting (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.20, 3 RCTs, n = 2186, I = 0%, high-quality evidence) associated with mifepristone than with Yuzpe. levonorgestrel is probably associated with a lower risk of nausea (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.44, 6 RCTs, n = 4750, I = 82%, moderate-quality evidence), or vomiting (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.35, 5 RCTs, n = 3640, I = 78%, moderate-quality evidence) than Yuzpe. Levonorgestrel users were less likely to have any side effects than Yuzpe users (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.86; 1 RCT, n = 1955, high-quality evidence). UPA users were more likely than levonorgestrel users to have resumption of menstruation after the expected date (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.92, 2 RCTs, n = 3593, I = 0%, high-quality evidence). Menstrual delay was more common with mifepristone than with any other intervention and appeared to be dose-related. Cu-IUD may be associated with higher risks of abdominal pain than mifepristone (18 events in 95 women using Cu-IUD versus no events in 190 women using mifepristone, low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Levonorgestrel and mid-dose mifepristone (25 mg to 50 mg) were more effective than Yuzpe regimen. Both mid-dose (25 mg to 50 mg) and low-dose mifepristone(less than 25 mg) were probably more effective than levonorgestrel (1.5 mg). Mifepristone low dose (less than 25 mg) was less effective than mid-dose mifepristone. UPA was more effective than levonorgestrel.Levonorgestrel users had fewer side effects than Yuzpe users, and appeared to be more likely to have a menstrual return before the expected date. UPA users were probably more likely to have a menstrual return after the expected date. Menstrual delay was probably the main adverse effect of mifepristone and seemed to be dose-related. Cu-IUD may be associated with higher risks of abdominal pain than ECPs.
Topics: Contraception, Postcoital; Contraceptives, Postcoital; Drug Administration Schedule; Estradiol; Female; Humans; Intrauterine Devices, Copper; Intrauterine Devices, Medicated; Levonorgestrel; Mifepristone; Norpregnadienes; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Unsafe Sex
PubMed: 28766313
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001324.pub5 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023To present the pooled quantitative evidence of baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes of tocilizumab (TCZ) in patients with refractory Takayasu arteritis (TAK). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To present the pooled quantitative evidence of baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes of tocilizumab (TCZ) in patients with refractory Takayasu arteritis (TAK).
METHODS
A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis was performed on all available studies retrieved from the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases, using TCZ in patients with refractory TAK. We applied the commands and in Stata Software to pool overall estimates of continuous data and binomial data, respectively. A random-effects model was recruited for analysis.
RESULTS
Nineteen studies with 466 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The mean age at implementation of TCZ was 34.32 years. Female sex and Numano Type V were the most prominent baseline characteristics. During the 12-month follow-up when receiving TCZ treatment, pooled CRP was 1.17 mg/L (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.18-2.52), pooled ESR was 3.54 mm/h (95% CI 0.51-6.58), and pooled glucocorticoid dose was 6.26 mg/d (95% CI 4.24-8.27). Approximately 76% (95% CI 58-87%) of patients achieved a decrease in glucocorticoid dosage. Meanwhile, patients with TAK had a remission rate of 79% (95% CI 69-86%), a relapse rate of 17% (95% CI 5-45%), an imaging progress rate of 16% (95% CI 9-27%), and a retention rate of 68% (95% CI 50-82%). Adverse events occurred in 16% (95% CI 5-39%) of patients, and infection was the most common adverse event, with a rate of 12% (95% CI 5-28%).
CONCLUSION
TCZ treatment can provide favorable outcomes in terms of inflammatory markers, steroid-sparing effects, clinical response, drug retention and minimizing adverse effects for patients with refractory TAK.
Topics: Humans; Female; Adult; Glucocorticoids; Takayasu Arteritis; Treatment Outcome; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized
PubMed: 36845158
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1084558 -
Cureus Sep 2023This systematic review and meta-analysis determine how frequently and how seriously gastrointestinal manifestations affect people with type 2 diabetes mellitus on... (Review)
Review
This systematic review and meta-analysis determine how frequently and how seriously gastrointestinal manifestations affect people with type 2 diabetes mellitus on tirzepatide. Tirzepatide is a recently developed drug that attempts to enhance type 2 diabetics' ability to regulate their blood sugar levels and promote weight reduction. Despite its potential benefits, clinical trials have revealed that the medication may lead to gastrointestinal side effects, including nausea, vomiting, decreased appetite, dyspepsia, constipation, and diarrhea. These side effects may negatively affect the drug's efficacy and patient tolerance. A comprehensive search of electronic databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, was conducted to find pertinent studies reporting on the frequency and severity of gastrointestinal symptoms in type 2 diabetes patients receiving tirzepatide. This systematic review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed. Six randomized controlled trials with a total of 4,586 patients were included. Most patients received tirzepatide to regulate their blood sugar levels and promote weight reduction, and the comparators were placebo, glucagon-like peptide one receptor agonists drugs, and insulin degludec. The dose of tirzepatide was 5mg, 10mg, and 15mg weekly. The incidence rate of nausea in patients who receive tirzepatide was 20.43%, while the incidence rate in the comparators was 10.47%, and it was significantly higher in the tirzepatide arm than in the comparators (RR, 2.90; 95% CI, 1.89 to 4.44; P ≤ 0.00001). The incidence rate of vomiting in patients who receive tirzepatide was 9.05%, while the rate in the comparators was 4.86%, and it was significantly higher in the tirzepatide arm than in the comparators (RR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.67 to 4.36; P ≤ 0.0001). The incidence rate of constipation in patients who receive tirzepatide was 2.54%, while the rate in the comparators was 0.856%, and it was significantly higher in the tirzepatide arm than in the comparators (RR, 3.08; 95% CI, 1.83 to 5.20; P ≤ 0.0001). The incidence rate of decreased appetite in patients who receive tirzepatide was 9.64%, while the rate in the comparators was 2.88%, and it was significantly higher in the tirzepatide arm than in the comparators (RR, 5.04; 95% CI, 3.01 to 8.45; P ≤ 0.00001). The incidence rate of diarrhea in patients who receive tirzepatide was 16.24%, while the rate in the comparators was 8.63%, and it was significantly higher in the tirzepatide arm than in the comparators (RR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.60 to 2.68; P ≤ 0.00001). The incidence rate of dyspepsia in patients who receive tirzepatide was 7.13%, while the rate in the comparators was 3.31%, and it was significantly higher in the tirzepatide arm than in the comparators (RR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.58 to 4.01; P ≤ 0.0001). Tirzepatide usage is linked to a significant prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms, including nausea, constipation, decreased appetite, dyspepsia, diarrhea, and vomiting, in people with type 2 diabetes. These findings may influence clinical decision-making and patient counseling on the use of tirzepatide and have significant implications for the medication's tolerance and efficacy. To find ways to reduce these negative effects and improve therapy for type 2 diabetes patients, more research is required.
PubMed: 37908927
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.46091 -
The Journal of Arthroplasty Sep 2015The effect of varying corticosteroid regimens on hip osteonecrosis incidence remains unclear. We performed a meta-analysis and systematic literature review to determine... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The effect of varying corticosteroid regimens on hip osteonecrosis incidence remains unclear. We performed a meta-analysis and systematic literature review to determine osteonecrosis occurrences in patients taking corticosteroids at varying mean and cumulative doses and treatment durations, and whether medical diagnoses affected osteonecrosis incidence. Fifty-seven studies (23,561 patients) were reviewed. Regression analysis determined significance between corticosteroid usage and osteonecrosis incidence. Osteonecrosis incidence was 6.7% with corticosteroid treatment of >2 g (prednisone-equivalent). Systemic lupus erythematosus patients had positive correlations between dose and osteonecrosis incidence. Each 10 mg/d increase was associated with a 3.6% increase in osteonecrosis rate, and >20 mg/d resulted in a higher osteonecrosis incidence. Clinicians must be wary of osteonecrosis in patients on high corticosteroid regimens, particularly in systematic lupus erythematosus.
Topics: Adolescent; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Aged; Child; Child, Preschool; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Incidence; Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic; Middle Aged; Osteonecrosis; Pelvic Bones; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 25900167
DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.03.036