-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2023A detailed summary and meta-analysis of the dose-related effect of pravastatin on lipids is not available. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A detailed summary and meta-analysis of the dose-related effect of pravastatin on lipids is not available.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objective To assess the pharmacology of pravastatin by characterizing the dose-related effect and variability of the effect of pravastatin on the surrogate marker: low-density lipoprotein (LDL cholesterol). The effect of pravastatin on morbidity and mortality is not the objective of this systematic review. Secondary objectives • To assess the dose-related effect and variability of effect of pravastatin on the following surrogate markers: total cholesterol; high-density lipoprotein (HDL cholesterol); and triglycerides. • To assess the effect of pravastatin on withdrawals due to adverse effects.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to September 2021: CENTRAL (2021, Issue 8), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Bireme LILACS, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized placebo-controlled trials evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of pravastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks in participants of any age with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for studies to be included, and extracted data. We entered lipid data from placebo-controlled trials into Review Manager 5 as continuous data and withdrawal due to adverse effects (WDAEs) data as dichotomous data. We searched for WDAEs information from all trials. We assessed all trials using Cochrane's risk of bias tool under the categories of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other potential biases.
MAIN RESULTS
Sixty-four RCTs evaluated the dose-related efficacy of pravastatin in 9771 participants. The participants were of any age, with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease, and pravastatin effects were studied within a treatment period of three to 12 weeks. Log dose-response data over the doses of 5 mg to 160 mg revealed strong linear dose-related effects on blood total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol, and a weak linear dose-related effect on blood triglycerides. There was no dose-related effect of pravastatin on blood HDL cholesterol. Pravastatin 10 mg/day to 80 mg/day reduced LDL cholesterol by 21.7% to 31.9%, total cholesterol by 16.1% to 23.3%,and triglycerides by 5.8% to 20.0%. The certainty of evidence for these effects was judged to be moderate to high. For every two-fold dose increase there was a 3.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2 to 4.6) decrease in blood LDL cholesterol. This represented a dose-response slope that was less than the other studied statins: atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, fluvastatin, pitavastatin and cerivastatin. From other systematic reviews we conducted on statins for its effect to reduce LDL cholesterol, pravastatin is similar to fluvastatin, but has a decreased effect compared to atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, pitavastatin and cerivastatin. The effect of pravastatin compared to placebo on WADES has a risk ratio (RR) of 0.81 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.03). The certainty of evidence was judged to be very low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Pravastatin lowers blood total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and triglyceride in a dose-dependent linear fashion. This review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with pravastatin because of the lack of reporting of adverse effects in 48.4% of the randomized placebo-controlled trials.
Topics: Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant; Pravastatin; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Atorvastatin; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cholesterol, HDL; Cholesterol, LDL; Fluvastatin; Rosuvastatin Calcium; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
PubMed: 37721222
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013673.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2023Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is the most common autoimmune blistering disease. Oral steroids are the standard treatment. We have updated this review, which was first... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is the most common autoimmune blistering disease. Oral steroids are the standard treatment. We have updated this review, which was first published in 2002, because several new treatments have since been tried.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of treatments for bullous pemphigoid.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated searches of the following databases to November 2021: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched five trial databases to January 2022, and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs of treatments for immunofluorescence-confirmed bullous pemphigoid.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors, working independently, evaluated the studies against the review's inclusion criteria and extracted data from included studies. Using GRADE methodology, we assessed the certainty of the evidence for each outcome in each comparison. Our primary outcomes were healing of skin lesions and mortality.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 14 RCTs (1442 participants). The main treatment modalities assessed were oral steroids, topical steroids, and the oral anti-inflammatory antibiotic doxycycline. Most studies reported mortality but adverse events and quality of life were not well reported. We decided to look at the primary outcomes 'disease control' and 'mortality'. Almost all studies investigated different comparisons; two studies were placebo-controlled. The results are therefore based on a single study for each comparison except azathioprine. Most studies involved only small numbers of participants. We assessed the risk of bias for all key outcomes as having 'some concerns' or high risk, due to missing data, inappropriate analysis, or insufficient information. Clobetasol propionate cream versus oral prednisone Compared to oral prednisone, clobetasol propionate cream applied over the whole body probably increases skin healing at day 21 (risk ratio (RR 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.13; 1 study, 341 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Skin healing at 21 days was seen in 99.8% of participants assigned to clobetasol and 92.4% of participants assigned to prednisone. Clobetasol propionate cream applied over the whole body compared to oral prednisone may reduce mortality at one year (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.01; 1 study, 341 participants; low-certainty evidence). Death occurred in 26.5% (45/170) of participants assigned to clobetasol and 36.3% (62/171) of participants assigned to oral prednisone. This study did not measure quality of life. Clobetasol propionate cream may reduce risk of severe complications by day 21 compared with oral prednisone (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.86; 1 study, 341 participants; low-certainty evidence). Mild clobetasol propionate cream regimen (10 to 30 g/day) versus standard clobetasol propionate cream regimen (40 g/day) A mild regimen of topical clobetasol propionate applied over the whole body compared to the standard regimen probably does not change skin healing at day 21 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.03; 1 study, 312 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Both groups showed complete healing of lesions at day 21 in 98% participants. A mild regimen of topical clobetasol propionate applied over the whole body compared to the standard regimen may not change mortality at one year (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.32; 1 study, 312 participants; low-certainty evidence), which occurred in 118/312 (37.9%) participants. This study did not measure quality of life. A mild regimen of topical clobetasol propionate applied over the whole body compared to the standard regimen may not change adverse events at one year (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.14; 1 study, 309 participants; low-certainty evidence). Doxycycline versus prednisolone Compared to prednisolone (0.5 mg/kg/day), doxycycline (200 mg/day) induces less skin healing at six weeks (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.92; 1 study, 213 participants; high-certainty evidence). Complete skin healing was reported in 73.8% of participants assigned to doxycycline and 91.1% assigned to prednisolone. Doxycycline compared to prednisolone probably decreases mortality at one year (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.89; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 14; 1 study, 234 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mortality occurred in 2.4% (3/132) of participants with doxycycline and 9.7% (11/121) with prednisolone. Compared to prednisolone, doxycycline improved quality of life at one year (mean difference 1.8 points lower, which is more favourable on the Dermatology Life Quality Index, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.58 lower; 1 study, 234 participants; high-certainty evidence). Doxycycline compared to prednisolone probably reduces severe or life-threatening treatment-related adverse events at one year (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.99; 1 study, 234 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Prednisone plus azathioprine versus prednisone It is unclear whether azathioprine plus prednisone compared to prednisone alone affects skin healing or mortality because there was only very low-certainty evidence from two trials (98 participants). These studies did not measure quality of life. Adverse events were reported in a total of 20/48 (42%) participants assigned to azathioprine plus prednisone and 15/44 (34%) participants assigned to prednisone. Nicotinamide plus tetracycline versus prednisone It is unclear whether nicotinamide plus tetracycline compared to prednisone affects skin healing or mortality because there was only very low-certainty evidence from one trial (18 participants). This study did not measure quality of life. Fewer adverse events were reported in the nicotinamide group. Methylprednisolone plus azathioprine versus methylprednisolone plus dapsone It is unclear whether azathioprine plus methylprednisolone compared to dapsone plus methylprednisolone affects skin healing or mortality because there was only very low-certainty evidence from one trial (54 participants). This study did not measure quality of life. A total of 18 adverse events were reported in the azathioprine group and 13 in the dapsone group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Clobetasol propionate cream applied over the whole body is probably similarly effective as, and may cause less mortality than, oral prednisone for treating bullous pemphigoid. Lower-dose clobetasol propionate cream applied over the whole body is probably similarly effective as standard-dose clobetasol propionate cream and has similar mortality. Doxycycline is less effective but causes less mortality than prednisolone for treating bullous pemphigoid. Other treatments need further investigation.
Topics: Humans; Azathioprine; Prednisone; Clobetasol; Pemphigoid, Bullous; Doxycycline; Methylprednisolone; Dapsone; Niacinamide
PubMed: 37572360
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002292.pub4 -
Cardiovascular Diabetology Nov 2023Bempedoic Acid (BA) is a novel Lipid-Lowering Therapy (LLT). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of BA in patients with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Bempedoic Acid (BA) is a novel Lipid-Lowering Therapy (LLT). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of BA in patients with hypercholesterolemia.
METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane library databases were searched for randomised controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and/or safety of BA compared with placebo. Trials investigating dosages other than 180 mg/die were excluded. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were the primary efficacy endpoint. LDL-cholesterol reduction was the primary laboratory endpoint. Pre-specified safety endpoints included muscle-related adverse events, new-onset diabetes, and gout. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (temporary ID:399,867).
RESULTS
Study search identified 275 deduplicated results. 11 studies, encompassing 18,315 patients (9854 on BA vs 8461 on placebo/no treatment) were included. BA was associated with a reduced risk of MACE (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79-0.95), myocardial infarction (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64-0.88) and unstable angina (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54-0.88) compared to control, over a median follow up of 87 (15-162) weeks. BA was associated with a reduction of LDL-Cholesterol (mean difference [MD]-22.42,95% CI - 24.02% to - 20.82%), total cholesterol (- 16.50%,95% - 19.21% to - 13.79%), Apo-B lipoprotein (- 19.55%, - 22.68% to - 16.42%) and high-sensitivity CRP (- 27.83%, - 31.71% to - 23.96%) at 12 weeks. BA was associated with a higher risk of gout (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.27-1.90) as compared with placebo. Efficacy on laboratory endpoints was confirmed, with a variable extent, across patients on statin or ezetimibe background therapy.
CONCLUSIONS
The improved cholesterol control achieved with BA translates into a reduced risk of MACE, including myocardial infarction and coronary revascularisation. The drug has a satisfactory safety profile except for an increased risk of gout.
Topics: Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Cholesterol, LDL; Cholesterol; Myocardial Infarction; Gout; Treatment Outcome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38017541
DOI: 10.1186/s12933-023-02022-z -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2023Carotid artery stenosis is narrowing of the carotid arteries. Asymptomatic carotid stenosis is when this narrowing occurs in people without a history or symptoms of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Carotid artery stenosis is narrowing of the carotid arteries. Asymptomatic carotid stenosis is when this narrowing occurs in people without a history or symptoms of this disease. It is caused by atherosclerosis; that is, the build-up of fats, cholesterol, and other substances in and on the artery walls. Atherosclerosis is more likely to occur in people with several risk factors, such as diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, and smoking. As this damage can develop without symptoms, the first symptom can be a fatal or disabling stroke, known as ischaemic stroke. Carotid stenosis leading to ischaemic stroke is most common in men older than 70 years. Ischaemic stroke is a worldwide public health problem.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of asymptomatic carotid stenosis in preventing neurological impairment, ipsilateral major or disabling stroke, death, major bleeding, and other outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and three trials registers from their inception to 9 August 2022. We also checked the reference lists of any relevant systematic reviews identified and contacted specialists in the field for additional references to trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of publication status and language, comparing a pharmacological intervention to placebo, no treatment, or another pharmacological intervention for asymptomatic carotid stenosis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of the trials. A third author resolved disagreements when necessary. We assessed the evidence certainty for key outcomes using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 34 RCTs with 11,571 participants. Data for meta-analysis were available from only 22 studies with 6887 participants. The mean follow-up period was 2.5 years. None of the 34 included studies assessed neurological impairment and quality of life. Antiplatelet agent (acetylsalicylic acid) versus placebo Acetylsalicylic acid (1 study, 372 participants) may result in little to no difference in ipsilateral major or disabling stroke (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 2.47), stroke-related mortality (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.54 to 3.59), progression of carotid stenosis (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.71), and adverse events (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.59), compared to placebo (all low-certainty evidence). The effect of acetylsalicylic acid on major bleeding is very uncertain (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.53; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure neurological impairment or quality of life. Antihypertensive agents (metoprolol and chlorthalidone) versus placebo The antihypertensive agent, metoprolol, may result in no difference in ipsilateral major or disabling stroke (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to1.16; 1 study, 793 participants) and stroke-related mortality (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.94; 1 study, 793 participants) compared to placebo (both low-certainty evidence). However, chlorthalidone may slow the progression of carotid stenosis (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.91; 1 study, 129 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo. Neither study measured neurological impairment, major bleeding, adverse events, or quality of life. Anticoagulant agent (warfarin) versus placebo The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of warfarin (1 study, 919 participants) on major bleeding (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.46; very low-certainty evidence), but it may reduce adverse events (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99; low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo. The study did not measure neurological impairment, ipsilateral major or disabling stroke, stroke-related mortality, progression of carotid stenosis, or quality of life. Lipid-lowering agents (atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, probucol, and rosuvastatin) versus placebo or no treatment Lipid-lowering agents may result in little to no difference in ipsilateral major or disabling stroke (atorvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, and rosuvastatin; RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.53; 5 studies, 2235 participants) stroke-related mortality (lovastatin and pravastatin; RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.29; 2 studies, 1366 participants), and adverse events (fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, probucol, and rosuvastatin; RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53 to1.10; 7 studies, 3726 participants) compared to placebo or no treatment (all low-certainty evidence). The studies did not measure neurological impairment, major bleeding, progression of carotid stenosis, or quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Although there is no high-certainty evidence to support pharmacological intervention, this does not mean that pharmacological treatments are ineffective in preventing ischaemic cerebral events, morbidity, and mortality. High-quality RCTs are needed to better inform the best medical treatment that may reduce the burden of carotid stenosis. In the interim, clinicians will have to use other sources of information.
Topics: Humans; Warfarin; Carotid Stenosis; Metoprolol; Atorvastatin; Chlorthalidone; Fluvastatin; Pravastatin; Probucol; Rosuvastatin Calcium; Stroke; Hemorrhage; Aspirin; Ischemic Stroke; Atherosclerosis
PubMed: 37565307
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013573.pub2 -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... Jul 2023Tuberculosis preventative therapy (TPT) is a key part of the World Health Organization's (WHO) end tuberculosis (TB) strategy. However, the occurrence of potentially... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Tuberculosis preventative therapy (TPT) is a key part of the World Health Organization's (WHO) end tuberculosis (TB) strategy. However, the occurrence of potentially serious adverse events (AE) is a limitation of TPT regimens. We conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis to estimate the incidence of AE and hepatotoxicity with various TPT regimens to help inform clinical decision making.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane, Health Star, and EMBASE from 1952 to April 2021 for studies reporting AE associated with TPT. Included studies reported AE stratified by regimen and provided the number of participants receiving each regimen. We used a random-effect model to meta-analyze the cumulative incidence of AE.
RESULTS
We included 175 publications describing TPT-related AE in 277 cohorts. Among adults, the incidence of any AE, and hepatotoxicity leading to drug discontinuation was 3.7% and 1.1%, respectively, compared to 0.4% and 0.02%, respectively, in children. The highest incidence of any AE, and AE leading to drug discontinuation was with 3 months isoniazid and rifapentine (3HP), and the lowest was with 4 months rifampin (4R). 4R also had the lowest incidence of hepato-toxic AE and drug discontinuation due to hepato-toxic AE. 3HP also had a low incidence of hepato-toxic AE.
CONCLUSIONS
Although our study was limited by variability in methods and quality of AE reporting in the studies reviewed, pediatric populations had a very low incidence of AE with all TPT regimens reviewed. In adults, compared to mono-H regimens all rifamycin-based regimens were safer, although 4R had the lowest incidence of TPT-related AE of all types and of hepatotoxicity.
Topics: Child; Adult; Humans; Antitubercular Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Tuberculosis; Isoniazid; Chemical and Drug Induced Liver Injury; Latent Tuberculosis
PubMed: 37125482
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciad246 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023Cancer is a major global health concern, and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) offer a promising treatment option for cancer patients. However, the efficacy of ICIs...
INTRODUCTION
Cancer is a major global health concern, and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) offer a promising treatment option for cancer patients. However, the efficacy of ICIs can be influenced by various factors, including the use of concomitant medications.
METHODS
We searched databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science) for systematic reviews and meta-analyses for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the impact of concomitant medications on ICIs efficacy, published from inception to January 1, 2023. We evaluated the methodological quality of the included meta-analyses, and re-synthesized data using a random-effects model and evidence stratification.
RESULTS
We included 23 publications, comprising 11 concomitant medications and 112 associations. Class II-IV evidence suggested that antibiotics have a negative impact on ICIs efficacy. However, ICIs efficacy against melanoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma was not affected, this effect was related to the exposure window (class IV). Class III evidence suggested that proton pump inhibitors have a negative impact on ICIs efficacy; nevertheless, the efficacy against melanoma and renal cell carcinoma was not affected, and the effect was related to exposure before the initiation of ICIs therapy (class II). Although class II/III evidence suggested that steroids have a negative impact, this effect was not observed when used for non-cancer indications and immune-related adverse events (class IV). Class IV evidence suggested that opioids reduce ICIs efficacy, whereas statins and probiotics may improve ICIs efficacy. ICIs efficacy was not affected by histamine 2 receptor antagonists, aspirin, metformin, β-blockers, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents.
CONCLUSION
Current evidence suggests that the use of antibiotics, PPIs, steroids, and opioids has a negative impact on the efficacy of ICIs. However, this effect may vary depending on the type of tumor, the timing of exposure, and the intended application. Weak evidence suggests that statins and probiotics may enhance the efficacy of ICIs. Aspirin, metformin, β-blockers, and NSAIDs do not appear to affect the efficacy of ICIs. However, caution is advised in interpreting these results due to methodological limitations.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO,identifier, CRD42022328681.
Topics: Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Aspirin; Esophageal Neoplasms; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Kidney Neoplasms; Liver Neoplasms; Melanoma; Metformin; Steroids; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Meta-Analysis as Topic
PubMed: 37841249
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1218386 -
Journal of the American Heart... Feb 2024There is debate over whether statins increase risk of hemorrhagic stroke, so we assessed current evidence, including data from new statin trials and trials of nonstatin... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
There is debate over whether statins increase risk of hemorrhagic stroke, so we assessed current evidence, including data from new statin trials and trials of nonstatin low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C)- and triglyceride-lowering therapies.
METHODS AND RESULTS
We performed a systematic review of large randomized clinical trials (≥1000 patients with ≥2 years follow-up) of LDL-C-lowering therapy (statin, ezetimibe, and PCSK-9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor) and triglyceride-lowering therapy (omega-3 supplements and fibrate) that reported hemorrhagic stroke as an outcome. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to July 2, 2021 and updated a meta-analysis of cardiovascular statin trials published in 2012. Among our several subgroup analyses, we looked at difference depending on stroke status and also depending on age. We identified 37 trials for LDL-C lowering (284 301 participants) and 11 for triglyceride lowering (120 984 participants). Overall, we found a higher risk of hemorrhagic stroke for LDL-C lowering, risk ratio (RR) 1.16 (95% CI, 1.01-1.32, =0.03). For statins (33 trials, 216 258 participants), RR=1.17 (95% CI, 1.01-1.36); for PCSK-9 inhibitors (2 trials, 46 488 participants), RR=0.86 (95% CI, 0.43-1.74); and for ezetimibe (2 trials, 21 555 participants), RR=1.14 (95% CI, 0.64-2.03). In statin trials of patients with previous stroke/transient ischemic attack, RR was 1.46 (95% CI, 1.05-2.04), and in trials with mean age ≥65 years old, RR=1.34 (95% CI, 1.04-1.73) (=0.14 and =0.23 respectively); for triglyceride lowering (11 trials, 120 984 participants), RR=1.05 (95% CI, 0.86-1.30).
CONCLUSIONS
We found evidence for a small increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke events with LDL-C-lowering therapies but no clear evidence for triglyceride-lowering therapies.
REGISTRATION
URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero; Unique identifier: CRD42021275363.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Anticholesteremic Agents; Cholesterol, LDL; Hemorrhagic Stroke; Cardiovascular Diseases; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ezetimibe; Stroke; Triglycerides
PubMed: 38323514
DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.123.030714 -
European Journal of Clinical... Nov 2023This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize the efficacy and safety of bempedoic acid in patients requiring lipid-lowering therapy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize the efficacy and safety of bempedoic acid in patients requiring lipid-lowering therapy.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched for randomized controlled trials from inception till June 2023. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serum lipid profile, and adverse events between bempedoic acid and comparators. ROB2 was used for risk of bias assessment. We pooled mean differences or relative risks (RR) along with 95% confidence intervals (random-effects model).
RESULTS
Five-hundred and thirty-one studies were screened and 17 (n = 21,131) were included for review. There was a significant reduction in the risk of MACE [RR, 0.88 (95% CI: 0.77 to 0.99), p = 0.03)] and all-cause mortality [RR, 0.90 (95% CI: 0.82 to 0.98), p = 0.02] following bempedoic acid treatment. Treatment with bempedoic acid led to a significant reduction in the mean serum total cholesterol [- 34.41 mg/dl (95% CI: - 42.43 to - 26.39), p < 0.001], low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) [- 33.91 mg/dl (95% CI: - 39.66 to - 28.17), p < 0.001], as well as high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) [- 2.40 mg/dl (95% CI: - 3.09 to - 1.71), p < 0.001] levels. However, there was a significant increase in the risk of hyperuricemia [RR, 2.05 (95% CI: 1.81 to 2.33), p < 0.001] following bempedoic acid treatment. The number needed to harm was large for all safety outcomes. The GRADE of evidence was moderate for all outcomes.
CONCLUSION
Bempedoic acid reduces the risk of MACE and all-cause mortality, lowers serum total cholesterol and LDL-C levels, and has a favorable safety profile. Trial registration ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: CRD42023412837.
Topics: Humans; Cholesterol, LDL; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Dicarboxylic Acids; Fatty Acids
PubMed: 37672112
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-023-03555-8 -
The Lancet. Planetary Health Nov 2023High-level exposure to indoor air pollutants (IAPs) and their corresponding adverse health effects have become a public concern in China in the past 10 years. However,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
High-level exposure to indoor air pollutants (IAPs) and their corresponding adverse health effects have become a public concern in China in the past 10 years. However, neither national nor provincial level burden of disease attributable to multiple IAPs has been reported for China. This is the first study to estimate and rank the annual burden of disease and the financial costs attributable to targeted residential IAPs at the national and provincial level in China from 2000 to 2017.
METHODS
We first did a systematic review and meta-analysis of 117 articles from 37 231 articles identified in major databases, and obtained exposure-response relationships for the candidate IAPs. The exposure levels to these IAPs were then collected by another systematic review of 1864 articles selected from 52 351 articles. After the systematic review, ten IAPs with significant and robust exposure-response relationships and sufficient exposure data were finally targeted: PM, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, ozone, carbon monoxide, radon, formaldehyde, benzene, toluene, and p-dichlorobenzene. The annual exposure levels in residences were then evaluated in all 31 provinces in mainland China continuously from 2000 to 2017, using the spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression model to analyse indoor originating IAPs, and the infiltration factor method to analyse outdoor originating IAPs. The disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) attributable to the targeted IAPs were estimated at both national and provincial levels in China, using the population attributable fraction method. Financial costs were estimated by an adapted human capital approach.
FINDINGS
From 2000 to 2017, annual DALYs attributable to the ten IAPs in mainland China decreased from 4620 (95% CI 4070-5040) to 3700 (3210-4090) per 100 000. Nevertheless, in 2017, IAPs still ranked third among all risk factors, and their DALYs and financial costs accounted for 14·1% (95% CI 12·3-15·6) of total DALYs and 3·45% (3·01-3·82) of the gross domestic product. Specifically, the rank of ten targeted IAPs in order of their contribution to DALYs in 2017 was PM, carbon monoxide, radon, benzene, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulphur dioxide, formaldehyde, toluene, and p-dichlorobenzene. The DALYs attributable to IAPs were 9·50% higher than those attributable to outdoor air pollution in 2017. For the leading IAP, PM, the DALYs attributable to indoor origins are 18·3% higher than those of outdoor origins.
INTERPRETATION
DALYs attributed to IAPs in China have decreased by 20·0% over the past two decades. Even so, they are still much higher than those in the USA and European countries. This study can provide a basis for determining which IAPs to target in various indoor air quality standards and for estimating the health and economic benefits of various indoor air quality control approaches, which will help to reduce the adverse health effects of IAPs in China.
FUNDING
The National Key Research and Development Program of China and the National Natural Science Foundation of China.
Topics: Humans; Air Pollutants; Carbon Monoxide; Sulfur Dioxide; Benzene; Nitrogen Dioxide; Formaldehyde; Cost of Illness; Particulate Matter; Radon; Ozone; Toluene
PubMed: 37940210
DOI: 10.1016/S2542-5196(23)00215-2 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Oct 2023Remdesivir is considered to be a specific drug for treating coronavirus disease 2019. This systematic review aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy and risk of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Remdesivir is considered to be a specific drug for treating coronavirus disease 2019. This systematic review aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy and risk of remdesivir alone and in combination with other drugs.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
The PubMed, Embase, SCIE, Cochrane Library, and American Clinical trial Center databases were searched up to 1 April 2022 to identify. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing the efficacy of remdesivir monotherapy and combination therapy with that of control drugs.
RESULTS
Ten RCTs and 32 observational studies were included in the analysis. Regarding the primary outcome, remdesivir use reduced mortality in patients with severe COVID-19 (RR = 0.57, 95% CI (0.48,0.68)) and shortened the time to clinical improvement (MD = -2.51, 95% CI (-2.75, -2.28)). Regarding other clinical outcomes, remdesivir use was associated with improved clinical status (RR = 1.08, 95%CI (1.01, 1.17)). Regarding safety outcomes, remdesivir use did not cause liver or kidney damage (RR = 0.87, 95%CI (0.68, 1.11)) (RR = 0.88, 95%CI (0.70,1.10)). Compared with remdesivir alone, remdesivir combined with other drugs (e.g., steroids, favipiravir, and convalescent plasma) had no effect on mortality.
CONCLUSION
The use of remdesivir can help to reduce the mortality of patients with severe COVID-19 and shorten the time to clinical improvement. There was no benefit of remdesivir combination therapy for other clinical outcomes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022322859.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Serotherapy; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37814214
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-023-08525-0