-
American Journal of Obstetrics &... Jul 2023This study aimed to compare 2 aspirin dosage regimens for the prevention of preterm preeclampsia (PE): 75 to 81 mg vs 150 to 162 mg taken daily starting in the first... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to compare 2 aspirin dosage regimens for the prevention of preterm preeclampsia (PE): 75 to 81 mg vs 150 to 162 mg taken daily starting in the first trimester of pregnancy.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic search was performed using PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1985 to April 2023.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials that compared the effect of 2 aspirin dosage regimens during pregnancy for the prevention of PE initiated in the first trimester of pregnancy. The intervention was an aspirin dosage between 150 and 162 mg daily, and the control was an aspirin dosage between 75 and 81 mg daily.
METHODS
Of note, 2 reviewers independently screened all citations, selected studies, and evaluated the risk of bias. The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and applied the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The corresponding authors of the included studies were contacted to validate each of the collected results. The primary outcome was the risk of preterm preeclampsia, and the secondary outcomes included term preeclampsia, any preeclampsia regardless of gestational age, and severe preeclampsia. Relative risks with their 95% confidence interval were calculated for each study and pooled for global analysis.
RESULTS
Of note, 4 randomized controlled trials were retrieved involving 552 participants. Moreover, 2 randomized controlled trials were at unclear risk of bias, 1 trial at low risk of bias and 1 trial at high risk of bias, which did not have the information for the primary outcome. The pooled analysis demonstrated that an aspirin dosage of 150 to 162 mg was associated with a significant reduction of preterm preeclampsia, compared with an aspirin dosage of 75 to 81 mg (3 studies; 472 participants; relative risk, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.79; P=.01; I=0%). There was no significant effect on the risk of term preeclampsia (3 studies; 472 participants; relative risk, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-2.64; P=.48; I=64%) and all preeclampsia (4 studies; 552 participants; relative risk, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-1.05; P=.06; I=58%), but there was a reduction of severe preeclampsia (3 studies; 472 participantst; RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.09-0.62; P=.003; I=0%).
CONCLUSION
When initiated in the first trimester of pregnancy, an aspirin dosage of 150 to 162 mg daily was associated with a lower risk of preterm PE than an aspirin dosage of 75 to 81 mg daily. However, the lack of large, high-quality studies limited the clinical scope of the current results taken alone.
Topics: Pregnancy; Infant, Newborn; Female; Humans; Aspirin; Pre-Eclampsia; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Pregnancy Trimester, First; Gestational Age
PubMed: 37146687
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2023.101000 -
Emergency Medicine Journal : EMJ Jul 2023Paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opiates/opioids, administered parenterally via intravenous or intramuscular route, are widely used to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison of intravenous paracetamol (acetaminophen) to intravenously or intramuscularly administered non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or opioids for patients presenting with moderate to severe acute pain conditions to the ED: systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
Paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opiates/opioids, administered parenterally via intravenous or intramuscular route, are widely used to provide analgesia for patients with moderate to severe pain. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the level of analgesia provided by intravenous paracetamol (IVP) alone compared with NSAIDs (intravenous or intramuscular), or opioids (intravenous) alone in adults attending the ED with acute pain.
METHODS
Two authors independently searched PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, Embase (OVID), Cochrane Library, SCOPUS and Google Scholar (3 March 2021-20 May 2022) for randomised trials without any language or date restriction. Clinical trials were evaluated using the Risk of Bias V.2 tool. The primary outcome was mean difference (MD) for pain reduction at 30 min (T30) post analgesia delivery. The secondary outcomes were MD in pain reduction at 60, 90 and 120 min; the need for rescue analgesia; and the occurrence of adverse events (AEs).
RESULTS
Twenty-seven trials (5427 patients) were included in the systematic review and 25 trials (5006 patients) in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in pain reduction at T30 between the IVP group and opioids (MD -0.13, 95% CI -1.49 to 1.22) or IVP and NSAIDs (MD -0.27, 95% CI -1.0 to 1.54. There was also no difference at 60 min, IVP group versus opioid group (MD -0.09, 95% CI -2.69 to 2.52) or IVP versus NSAIDs (MD 0.51, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.91). The quality of the evidence using Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Development and Evaluations methodology was low for MD in pain scores.The need for rescue analgesia at T30 was significantly higher in the IVP group compared with the NSAID group (risk ratio (RR): 1.50, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.83), with no difference found between the IVP group and the opioid group (RR: 1.07, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.70). AEs were 50% lower in the IVP group compared with the opioid group (RR: 0.50, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.62), whereas no difference was observed in the IVP group compared with the NSAID group (RR: 1.30, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.15).
CONCLUSION
In patients presenting to the ED with a diverse range of pain conditions, IVP provides similar levels of pain relief compared with opiates/opioids or NSAIDs at T30 post administration. Patients treated with NSAIDs had lower risk of rescue analgesia, and opioids cause more AEs, suggesting NSAIDs as the first-choice analgesia and IVP as a suitable alternative.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42021240099.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Acetaminophen; Acute Pain; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Administration, Intravenous; Injections, Intramuscular; Emergency Service, Hospital; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37173122
DOI: 10.1136/emermed-2022-212869 -
European Journal of Anaesthesiology Oct 2023Pain after craniotomy can be intense and its management is often suboptimal.
BACKGROUND
Pain after craniotomy can be intense and its management is often suboptimal.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to evaluate the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after craniotomy.
DESIGN
A systematic review using procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) methodology was undertaken.
DATA SOURCES
Randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews published in English from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2021 assessing pain after craniotomy using analgesic, anaesthetic or surgical interventions were identified from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Databases.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Each randomised controlled trial (RCT) and systematic review was critically evaluated and included only if met the PROSPECT requirements. Included studies were evaluated for clinically relevant differences in pain scores, use of nonopioid analgesics, such as paracetamol and NSAIDs, and current clinical relevance.
RESULTS
Out of 126 eligible studies identified, 53 RCTs and seven systematic review or meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria. Pre-operative and intra-operative interventions that improved postoperative pain were paracetamol, NSAIDs, intravenous dexmedetomidine infusion, regional analgesia techniques, including incision-site infiltration, scalp nerve block and acupuncture. Limited evidence was found for flupirtine, intra-operative magnesium sulphate infusion, intra-operative lidocaine infusion, infiltration adjuvants (hyaluronidase, dexamethasone and α-adrenergic agonist added to local anaesthetic solution). No evidence was found for metamizole, postoperative subcutaneous sumatriptan, pre-operative oral vitamin D, bilateral maxillary block or superficial cervical plexus block.
CONCLUSIONS
The analgesic regimen for craniotomy should include paracetamol, NSAIDs, intravenous dexmedetomidine infusion and a regional analgesic technique (either incision-site infiltration or scalp nerve block), with opioids as rescue analgesics. Further RCTs are required to confirm the influence of the recommended analgesic regimen on postoperative pain relief.
Topics: Humans; Pain Management; Dexmedetomidine; Acetaminophen; Analgesics; Pain, Postoperative; Craniotomy; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal
PubMed: 37417808
DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001877 -
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 -
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 -
Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology Jul 2023Acetaminophen is a frequently used analgesic for pain and fever. There have been reports of adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes associated with in utero acetaminophen... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Acetaminophen is a frequently used analgesic for pain and fever. There have been reports of adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes associated with in utero acetaminophen exposure. However, it is unclear whether this association is related directly to acetaminophen use, or the reasons for use.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise the literature on the association between in utero acetaminophen exposure and child neurodevelopmental outcomes, and assess the extent to which the association is due to confounding by indication.
DATA SOURCES
OVID for Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO, and EBSCO for CINAHL, from inception to August 18, 2022.
STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION
We searched for peer-reviewed, English-language studies on in utero acetaminophen exposure and child neurodevelopmental outcomes. Data were extracted using a standardised form created a priori, and quality was assessed using the Systematic Assessment of Quality in Observational Research.
SYNTHESIS
We generated pooled risk ratios (RR) for outcomes examined by ≥3 studies using random-effects models; outcomes that could not be meta-analysed were narratively summarised following Synthesis Without Meta-Analysis guidelines.
RESULTS
Twenty-two studies including 23 cohorts were eligible (n = 367,775 total participants; median: 51.7% with acetaminophen exposure). Studies were primarily prospective cohort studies from Europe and the US, with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) being the most common outcome. Quality assessments resulted in 13.6% of studies being classified as high, 59.1% as medium, 22.7% as low, and 4.5% as very low quality. In utero acetaminophen exposure was associated with an elevated risk of ADHD (unadjusted pooled RR 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20, 1.44; I = 47%, n = 7 studies), with little difference after adjusting for confounders, including indications for acetaminophen use (adjusted pooled RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.15, 1.55; I = 50%, n = 4 studies).
CONCLUSIONS
Confounding by indication did not explain the association between in utero acetaminophen exposure and child ADHD. Further, high-quality research is needed on this and other neurodevelopmental outcomes.
Topics: Child; Humans; Acetaminophen; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Europe; Pain; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 36939050
DOI: 10.1111/ppe.12963 -
Pharmacology Research & Perspectives Aug 2023This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of multiple or single-dosage intravenous ibuprofen (IVIB) in managing postoperative pain and fever in adults who are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of multiple or single-dosage intravenous ibuprofen (IVIB) in managing postoperative pain and fever in adults who are unable to take oral medications. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IVIB with placebo or other analgesic and antipyretic medications for postoperative pain and fever management. Data were collected from 8 main databases from the inception to June 2022. Risk of bias assessment was performed, and the GRADE methodology was used to assess the certainty of pooled evidence. Primary outcomes included visual analogue scale (VAS) scores within 24 h postoperative and reduction of temperature. Meta-analyses were conducted to calculate the mean difference (MD) or risk ratios (RR) and 95% CIs. As a result, a total of twenty-three RCTs with 3716 participants were included. For postoperative pain, with moderate-to-low certainty evidence, IVIB was associated with lower postoperative VAS scores than placebo, with MD ranging from -3.53 (95% CI, -4.32 to -2.75) at 0 min to -0.96 (95% CI, -1.35 to -0.57) at 24 h. Compared with intravenous acetaminophen, IVIB demonstrated lower VAS scores (MD, -1.54 at 0 min; -0.36 at 24 h). For fever, IVIB showed satisfactory antipyretic efficiency in a short period of time, but no difference was observed between IVIB and intravenous acetaminophen. IVIB was well-tolerated for both pain and fever management. In conclusion, moderate-to-low certainty evidence supports the use of IVIB for adults with postoperative pain and fever who are unable to take oral medications.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Ibuprofen; Acetaminophen; Antipyretics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Fever; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 37530511
DOI: 10.1002/prp2.1123 -
Journal of Orthopaedics and... Jan 2024Several clinical investigations have compared different pharmacologic agents for the prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, no consensus has been reached.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Several clinical investigations have compared different pharmacologic agents for the prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, no consensus has been reached. The present investigation compared enoxaparin, fondaparinux, aspirin and non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) commonly used as prophylaxis following total hip arthroplasty (THA). A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed, setting as outcomes of interest the rate of deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE) and major and minor haemorrhages.
METHODS
This study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension statement for reporting systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of healthcare interventions. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing two or more drugs used for the prophylaxis of VTE following THA were accessed. PubMed, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases were accessed in March 2023 with no time constraint.
RESULTS
Data from 31,705 patients were extracted. Of these, 62% (19,824) were women, with age, sex ratio, and body mass index (BMI) being comparable at baseline. Apixaban 5 mg, fondaparinux, and rivaroxaban 60 mg were the most effective in reducing the rate of DVT. Dabigatran 220 mg, apixaban 5 mg, and aspirin 100 mg were the most effective in reducing the rate of PE. Apixaban 5 mg, ximelagatran 2 mg and aspirin 100 mg were associated with the lowest rate of major haemorrhages, while rivaroxaban 2.5 mg, apixaban 5 mg and enoxaparin 40 mg were associated with the lowest rate of minor haemorrhages.
CONCLUSION
Administration of apixaban 5 mg demonstrated the best balance between VTE prevention and haemorrhage control following THA. Level of evidence Level I, network meta-analysis of RCTs.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Aspirin; Enoxaparin; Fibrinolytic Agents; Fondaparinux; Hemorrhage; Network Meta-Analysis; Rivaroxaban; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 38194191
DOI: 10.1186/s10195-023-00742-2 -
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology,... Oct 2023Patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are at high risk for thromboembolic events compared to non-surgical patients. Both anticoagulants and antiplatelet... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are at high risk for thromboembolic events compared to non-surgical patients. Both anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents are used as antithrombotic prophylaxis in TKA. The aim of this review is to understand the role of aspirin in the prevention of thromboembolic events and to compare its efficacy and safety with the main anticoagulants used in antithromboembolic prophylaxis in TKA.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. An electronic systematic search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Registry to evaluate studies that compared aspirin with other anticoagulants, in terms of deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism after TKA. The meta-analysis compared the rate of complications between aspirin and other anticoagulants.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies were included in the systematic review for a total of 163,983 patients, and 10 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis demonstrated no statistically significant differences between aspirin and other anticoagulants in terms of the rate of deep venous thrombosis (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81-1.08, p = 0.35) and pulmonary embolism (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.56-1.41, p = 0.61).
CONCLUSION
Aspirin is safe, effective, and not inferior to other main anticoagulants in preventing thromboembolic events following TKA.
Topics: Humans; Anticoagulants; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Aspirin; Thromboembolism
PubMed: 37449989
DOI: 10.1007/s00167-023-07500-1 -
Clinical and Experimental Medicine Dec 2023This study aims to investigate the impact of antithrombotic agents and proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) on fecal immunochemical test (FIT). PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This study aims to investigate the impact of antithrombotic agents and proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) on fecal immunochemical test (FIT). PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar were searched from inception until September 3, 2023. Studies comparing the diagnostic performance of FIT between medicine users and non-users in average-risk colorectal cancer screening populations were included. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values (PPVs) for advanced neoplasia (AN) of FIT were compared by reporting pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model. Twenty-two studies enrolling 5,572,367 individuals were included. For aspirin, pooled sensitivity and specificity for AN were 57.2% and 88.4% in users versus 60.2% and 93.2% in non-users; while pooled ORs were 1.49 (95% CI 0.89-2.48, P = 0.13) and 0.72 (95% CI 0.62-0.83, P < 0.001), respectively. In subgroup analysis, there was no difference in sensitivity and specificity between the two groups at the cutoff of 20 μg Hb/g (P = 0.57 and 0.29, respectively) but a significantly lower specificity in users compared with non-users at lower cutoffs (P < 0.001). Moreover, a significantly lower PPV in users compared with non-users was observed after matching age and sex confounders (P = 0.001). Warfarin had no significant influence on PPV of FIT (P = 0.43). PPIs were associated with a significantly lower PPV in users (P < 0.001). Aspirin use was associated with lower specificity and PPV of FIT. Aspirin discontinuation before FIT to reduce false-positive results should be interpreted with caution given concerns about cardiovascular events. Increasing cutoff values of FIT in aspirin users may be another possible approach. Additionally, warfarin withdrawal before FIT is unnecessary but PPIs withdrawal before FIT is recommended to reduce false-positive results.
Topics: Humans; Aspirin; Warfarin; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Early Detection of Cancer; Colorectal Neoplasms; Colonoscopy
PubMed: 37804359
DOI: 10.1007/s10238-023-01196-w