-
Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy Oct 2020Hypertension is a major and modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Its prevalence is rising as the result of population aging. Isolated systolic hypertension...
INTRODUCTION
Hypertension is a major and modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Its prevalence is rising as the result of population aging. Isolated systolic hypertension mostly occurs in older patients accounting for up to 80% of cases.
AREAS COVERED
The authors systematically review published studies to appraise the scientific and clinical evidence supporting the role of blood pressure control in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension, and to assess the influence of different drug treatment regimens on outcomes.
EXPERT OPINION
Antihypertensive treatment of isolated systolic hypertension significantly reduces the risk of morbidity and mortality in elderly patients. Thiazide diuretics and dihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers are the primary compounds used in randomized clinical trials. These drugs can be considered as first-line agents for the management of isolated systolic hypertension. Free or fixed combination therapy with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers and calcium-channel blockers or thiazide-like diuretics should also be considered, particularly when compelling indications such as coronary artery disease, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and congestive heart failure coexist. There is also hot scientific debate on the optimal blood pressure target to be achieved in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension, but current recommendations are scarcely supported by evidence.
Topics: Aged; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Antihypertensive Agents; Blood Pressure; Calcium Channel Blockers; Diabetes Mellitus; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Hypertension; Sodium Chloride Symporter Inhibitors
PubMed: 32584617
DOI: 10.1080/14656566.2020.1781092 -
Muscle & Nerve Oct 2022Prognostic factors in Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) predict the disease course and may help individualize patient care. The aim was to summarize the evidence on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION/AIMS
Prognostic factors in Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) predict the disease course and may help individualize patient care. The aim was to summarize the evidence on prognostic factors that may support treatment decisions.
METHODS
We searched six databases for prospective studies that each included ≥50 DMD patients with a minimum follow-up of 1 y. Primary outcomes were age at loss of ambulation (LoA), pulmonary function (forced vital capacity percent of predicted, FVC%p), and heart failure.
RESULTS
Out of 5074 references, 59 studies were analyzed. Corticosteroid use was associated with a delayed LoA (pooled effect hazard ratio [HR] 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23-0.75, I2 94%), better pulmonary function tests (higher peak FVC%, prolonged time with FVC%p > 50%, and reduced need for assisted ventilation) and delayed cardiomyopathy. Longer corticosteroid treatment was associated with later LoA (>1 y compared to <1 y; pooled HR: 0.50, 95% CI 0.27-0.90) and early treatment start (aged <5 y) may be associated with early cardiomyopathy and higher fracture risk. Genotype appeared to be an independent driver of LoA in some studies. Higher baseline physical function tests (e.g., 6-minute walk test) were associated with delayed LoA. Left ventricular dysfunction and FVC <1 L increased and the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduced the risk of heart failure and death. Fusion surgery in scoliosis may potentially preserve pulmonary function.
DISCUSSION
Prognostic factors that may inform clinical decisions include age at corticosteroid treatment initiation and treatment duration, ACE-inhibitor use, baseline physical function tests, pulmonary function, and cardiac dysfunction.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Angiotensins; Cardiomyopathies; Disease Progression; Heart Failure; Humans; Muscular Dystrophy, Duchenne; Prognosis; Prospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35860996
DOI: 10.1002/mus.27682 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2020Worldwide, there is an increasing incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Metformin is still the recommended first-line glucose-lowering drug for people with T2DM.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Worldwide, there is an increasing incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Metformin is still the recommended first-line glucose-lowering drug for people with T2DM. Despite this, the effects of metformin on patient-important outcomes are still not clarified.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of metformin monotherapy in adults with T2DM.
SEARCH METHODS
We based our search on a systematic report from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and topped-up the search in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Additionally, we searched the reference lists of included trials and systematic reviews, as well as health technology assessment reports and medical agencies. The date of the last search for all databases was 2 December 2019, except Embase (searched up 28 April 2017).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least one year's duration comparing metformin monotherapy with no intervention, behaviour changing interventions or other glucose-lowering drugs in adults with T2DM.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles/records, assessed risk of bias, and extracted outcome data independently. We resolved discrepancies by involvement of a third review author. For meta-analyses we used a random-effects model with investigation of risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence by using the GRADE instrument.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 RCTs with multiple study arms (N = 10,680). The percentage of participants finishing the trials was approximately 58% in all groups. Treatment duration ranged from one to 10.7 years. We judged no trials to be at low risk of bias on all 'Risk of bias' domains. The main outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events (SAEs), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), cardiovascular mortality (CVM), non-fatal myocardial infarction (NFMI), non-fatal stroke (NFS), and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Two trials compared metformin (N = 370) with insulin (N = 454). Neither trial reported on all-cause mortality, SAE, CVM, NFMI, NFS or ESRD. One trial provided information on HRQoL but did not show a substantial difference between the interventions. Seven trials compared metformin with sulphonylureas. Four trials reported on all-cause mortality: in three trials no participant died, and in the remaining trial 31/1454 participants (2.1%) in the metformin group died compared with 31/1441 participants (2.2%) in the sulphonylurea group (very low-certainty evidence). Three trials reported on SAE: in two trials no SAE occurred (186 participants); in the other trial 331/1454 participants (22.8%) in the metformin group experienced a SAE compared with 308/1441 participants (21.4%) in the sulphonylurea group (very low-certainty evidence). Two trials reported on CVM: in one trial no CVM was observed and in the other trial 4/1441 participants (0.3%) in the metformin group died of cardiovascular reasons compared with 8/1447 participants (0.6%) in the sulphonylurea group (very low-certainty evidence). Three trials reported on NFMI: in two trials no NFMI occurred, and in the other trial 21/1454 participants (1.4%) in the metformin group experienced a NFMI compared with 15/1441 participants (1.0%) in the sulphonylurea group (very low-certainty evidence). One trial reported no NFS occurred (very low-certainty evidence). No trial reported on HRQoL or ESRD. Seven trials compared metformin with thiazolidinediones (very low-certainty evidence for all outcomes). Five trials reported on all-cause mortality: in two trials no participant died; the overall RR was 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.39; P = 0.57; 5 trials; 4402 participants). Four trials reported on SAE, the RR was 0,95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.09; P = 0.49; 3208 participants. Four trials reported on CVM, the RR was 0.71, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.39; P = 0.58; 3211 participants. Three trial reported on NFMI: in two trials no NFMI occurred and in one trial 21/1454 participants (1.4%) in the metformin group experienced a NFMI compared with 25/1456 participants (1.7%) in the thiazolidinedione group. One trial reported no NFS occurred. No trial reported on HRQoL or ESRD. Three trials compared metformin with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (one trial each with saxagliptin, sitagliptin, vildagliptin with altogether 1977 participants). There was no substantial difference between the interventions for all-cause mortality, SAE, CVM, NFMI and NFS (very low-certainty evidence for all outcomes). One trial compared metformin with a glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue (very low-certainty evidence for all reported outcomes). There was no substantial difference between the interventions for all-cause mortality, CVM, NFMI and NFS. One or more SAEs were reported in 16/268 (6.0%) of the participants allocated to metformin compared with 35/539 (6.5%) of the participants allocated to a glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue. HRQoL or ESRD were not reported. One trial compared metformin with meglitinide and two trials compared metformin with no intervention. No deaths or SAEs occurred (very low-certainty evidence) no other patient-important outcomes were reported. No trial compared metformin with placebo or a behaviour changing interventions. Four ongoing trials with 5824 participants are likely to report one or more of our outcomes of interest and are estimated to be completed between 2018 and 2024. Furthermore, 24 trials with 2369 participants are awaiting assessment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no clear evidence whether metformin monotherapy compared with no intervention, behaviour changing interventions or other glucose-lowering drugs influences patient-important outcomes.
Topics: Adult; Carbamates; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cause of Death; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors; Glucagon-Like Peptide 1; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Insulin; Metformin; Myocardial Infarction; Piperidines; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke; Sulfonylurea Compounds
PubMed: 32501595
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012906.pub2 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jun 2022To examine the association between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and gallbladder or biliary diseases. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and gallbladder or biliary disease in type 2 diabetes: systematic review and pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the association between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and gallbladder or biliary diseases.
DESIGN
Systematic review and pairwise and network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CENTRAL from inception until 31 July 2021.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of adult patients with type 2 diabetes who received dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors compared with placebo or other antidiabetes drugs.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Composite of gallbladder or biliary diseases, cholecystitis, cholelithiasis, and biliary diseases.
DATA EXTRACTION AND DATA SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of the studies. The quality of the evidence for each outcome was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework (GRADE) approach. The meta-analysis used pooled odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS
A total of 82 randomised controlled trials with 104 833 participants were included in the pairwise meta-analysis. Compared with placebo or non-incretin drugs, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors were significantly associated with an increased risk of the composite of gallbladder or biliary diseases (odds ratio 1.22 (95%confidence interval 1.04 to 1.43); risk difference 11 (2 to 21) more events per 10 000 person years) and cholecystitis (odds ratio 1.43 (1.14 to 1.79); risk difference 15 (5 to 27) more events per 10 000 person years) but not with the risk of cholelithiasis and biliary diseases. The associations tended to be observed in patients with a longer duration of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor treatment. In the network meta-analysis of 184 trials, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors increased the risk of the composite of gallbladder or biliary diseases and cholecystitis compared with sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors but not compared with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists.
CONCLUSIONS
Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors increased the risk of cholecystitis in randomised controlled trials, especially with a longer treatment duration, which requires more attention from physicians in clinical practice.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42021271647.
Topics: Adult; Cholecystitis; Cholelithiasis; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors; Dipeptidyl-Peptidases and Tripeptidyl-Peptidases; Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor; Glucose; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sodium; Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors
PubMed: 35764326
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2021-068882 -
Critical Care Medicine Oct 2021To combine evidence on andexanet alfa and prothrombin complex concentrates for factor Xa inhibitor-associated bleeding to guide clinicians on reversal strategies. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To combine evidence on andexanet alfa and prothrombin complex concentrates for factor Xa inhibitor-associated bleeding to guide clinicians on reversal strategies.
DATA SOURCES
Embase, Pubmed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library.
STUDY SELECTION
Observational studies and randomized clinical trials studying hemostatic effectiveness of andexanet alfa or prothrombin complex concentrate for acute reversal of factor Xa inhibitor-associated hemorrhage.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two independent reviewers extracted the data from the studies. Visualization and comparison of hemostatic effectiveness using Sarode et al or International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis Scientific and Standardization Committee criteria at 12 and 24 hours, (venous) thrombotic event rates, and inhospital mortality were performed by constructing Forest plots. Exploratory analysis using a logistic mixed model analysis was performed to identify factors associated with effectiveness and venous thromboembolic event.
DATA SYNTHESIS
A total of 21 studies were included (andexanet: 438 patients; prothrombin complex concentrate: 1,278 patients). The (weighted) mean effectiveness for andexanet alfa was 82% at 12 hours and 71% at 24 hours. The (weighted) mean effectiveness for prothrombin complex concentrate was 88% at 12 hours and 76% at 24 hours. The mean 30-day symptomatic venous thromboembolic event rates were 5.0% for andexanet alfa and 1.9% for prothrombin complex concentrate. The mean 30-day total thrombotic event rates for andexanet alfa and prothrombin complex concentrate were 10.7% and 3.1%, respectively. Mean inhospital mortality was 23.3% for andexanet versus 15.8% for prothrombin complex concentrate. Exploratory analysis controlling for potential confounders did not demonstrate significant differences between both reversal agents.
CONCLUSIONS
Currently, available evidence does not unequivocally support the clinical effectiveness of andexanet alfa or prothrombin complex concentrate to reverse factor Xa inhibitor-associated acute major bleeding, nor does it permit conventional meta-analysis of potential superiority. Neither reversal agent was significantly associated with increased effectiveness or a higher rate of venous thromboembolic event. These results underscore the importance of randomized controlled trials comparing the two reversal agents and may provide guidance in designing institutional guidelines.
Topics: Coagulants; Factor Xa; Factor Xa Inhibitors; Hemorrhage; Humans; Prothrombin; Recombinant Proteins
PubMed: 33967205
DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000005059 -
Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation :... Nov 2022While it is well known that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) increase the risk of acute renal failure, the role of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
While it is well known that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) increase the risk of acute renal failure, the role of neprilysin inhibition (NEPi) is unclear and some physicians are reluctant to prescribe sacubitril/valsartan because of safety concerns. This meta-analysis aimed to examine the risk for renal events, progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) or progression to dialysis on combined NEPi and ACEi/ARBs compared with ACEi or ARBs.
METHODS
We performed a systematic meta-analysis including 17 randomized controlled trials (study drug sacubitril/valsartan or omapatrilat), involving a total of 23 569 patients, after searching PubMed, Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.org and Embase for eligible studies. From the included trials, all renal endpoints, including long- and short-term outcomes and hyperkalemia, were extracted. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using the DerSimonian and Laird method. The study was registered at PROSPERO.
RESULTS
Overall, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or omapatrilat showed a slightly lower risk of any renal event [OR 0.82 (0.7-0.97)] compared with treatment with an ACEi or ARB alone. Also, there was a decreased risk of severe acute renal events [OR 0.8 (0.69-0.93)] and a decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate decline [mean difference -0.58 mL/min (-0.83 to -0.33 mL/min)]. There was no difference in chronic renal events [OR 0.92 (0.8-1.05)] or hyperkalemia [OR 1.02 (0.84-1.23)].
CONCLUSION
NEPi + ACEi/ARBs are safe in terms of renal adverse events. Longer trials focusing on CKD are needed to evaluate the effect of NEPi on decreasing progression of CKD.
Topics: Humans; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Neprilysin; Hyperkalemia; Renal Dialysis; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Valsartan; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35022763
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfac001 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Despite the availability of effective drug therapies that reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol (LDL-C), cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains an important... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Despite the availability of effective drug therapies that reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol (LDL-C), cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains an important cause of mortality and morbidity. Therefore, additional LDL-C reduction may be warranted, especially for people who are unresponsive to, or unable to take, existing LDL-C-reducing therapies. By inhibiting the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) enzyme, monoclonal antibodies (PCSK9 inhibitors) reduce LDL-C and CVD risk.
OBJECTIVES
Primary To quantify the effects of PCSK9 inhibitors on CVD, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke, compared to placebo or active treatment(s) for primary and secondary prevention. Secondary To quantify the safety of PCSK9 inhibitors, with specific focus on the incidence of influenza, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and cancer, compared to placebo or active treatment(s) for primary and secondary prevention.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified studies by systematically searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science in December 2019. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in August 2020 and screened the reference lists of included studies. This is an update of the review first published in 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All parallel-group and factorial randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up of at least 24 weeks were eligible.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently reviewed and extracted data. Where data were available, we calculated pooled effect estimates. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence and in 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 24 studies with data on 60,997 participants. Eighteen trials randomised participants to alirocumab and six to evolocumab. All participants received background lipid-lowering treatment or lifestyle counselling. Six alirocumab studies used an active treatment comparison group (the remaining used placebo), compared to three evolocumab active comparison trials. Alirocumab compared with placebo decreased the risk of CVD events, with an absolute risk difference (RD) of -2% (odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 0.94; 10 studies, 23,868 participants; high-certainty evidence), decreased the risk of mortality (RD -1%; OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96; 12 studies, 24,797 participants; high-certainty evidence), and MI (RD -2%; OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.94; 9 studies, 23,352 participants; high-certainty evidence) and for any stroke (RD 0%; OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.91; 8 studies, 22,835 participants; high-certainty evidence). Compared to active treatment the alirocumab effects, for CVD, the RD was 1% (OR 1.37, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.87; 3 studies, 1379 participants; low-certainty evidence); for mortality, RD was -1% (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.40; 5 studies, 1333 participants; low-certainty evidence); for MI, RD was 1% (OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.28, 5 studies, 1734 participants; low-certainty evidence); and for any stroke, RD was less than 1% (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.13 to 5.61; 5 studies, 1734 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo the evolocumab, for CVD, the RD was -2% (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.91; 3 studies, 29,432 participants; high-certainty evidence); for mortality, RD was less than 1% (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.19; 3 studies, 29,432 participants; high-certainty evidence); for MI, RD was -1% (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.82; 3 studies, 29,432 participants; high-certainty evidence); and for any stroke RD was less than -1% (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.94; 2 studies, 28,531 participants; high-certainty evidence). Compared to active treatment, the evolocumab effects, for any CVD event RD was less than -1% (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.04; 1 study, 218 participants; very low-certainty evidence); for all-cause mortality, the RD was less than 1% (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.30; 3 studies, 5223 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and for MI, RD was less than 1% (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.85; 3 studies, 5003 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were insufficient data on any stroke. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for the clinical endpoint effects of evolocumab and alirocumab were graded as high. There is a strong evidence base to prescribe PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies to people who might not be eligible for other lipid-lowering drugs, or to people who cannot meet their lipid goals on more traditional therapies, which was the main patient population of the available trials. The evidence base of PCSK9 inhibitors compared with active treatment is much weaker (low very- to low-certainty evidence) and it is unclear whether evolocumab or alirocumab might be effectively used as replacement therapies. Related, most of the available studies preferentially enrolled people with either established CVD or at a high risk already, and evidence in low- to medium-risk settings is minimal. Finally, there is very limited evidence on any potential safety issues of both evolocumab and alirocumab. While the current evidence synthesis does not reveal any adverse signals, neither does it provide evidence against such signals. This suggests careful consideration of alternative lipid lowering treatments before prescribing PCSK9 inhibitors.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Anticholesteremic Agents; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cause of Death; Cholesterol, LDL; Cholinergic Antagonists; Ezetimibe; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Middle Aged; Myocardial Infarction; PCSK9 Inhibitors; Primary Prevention; Proprotein Convertase 9; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention; Stroke; Time Factors
PubMed: 33078867
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011748.pub3 -
Circulation. Cardiovascular Quality and... Mar 2020Stroke reduction with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in atrial fibrillation (AF) is dependent on adherence and persistence in the real-world setting. Individual... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Stroke reduction with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in atrial fibrillation (AF) is dependent on adherence and persistence in the real-world setting. Individual study estimates of DOAC adherence/persistence rates have been discordant. Our aims were to characterize real-world observational evidence for DOAC adherence/persistence and evaluate associated clinical outcomes in patients with AF.
METHODS AND RESULTS
PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched from inception to June 2018. Observational studies that reported real-world DOAC adherence/persistence in patients with AF were included. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analyses for pooled estimates were performed using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models. Outcomes included DOAC mean proportion of days covered or medication possession ratio, proportion of good adherence (proportion of days covered/medication possession ratio ≥80%), persistence, DOAC versus vitamin K antagonists persistence, and clinical outcomes associated with nonadherence/nonpersistence. Forty-eight observational studies with 594 784 unique patients with AF (59% male; mean age 71 years) were included. The overall pooled mean proportion of days covered/medication possession ratio was 77% (95% CI, 75%-80%), proportion of patients with good adherence was 66% (95% CI, 63%-70%), and proportion persistent was 69% (95% CI, 65%-72%). The pooled proportion of patients with good adherence was 71% (95% CI, 64%-78%) for apixaban, 60% (95% CI, 52%-68%) for dabigatran, and 70% (95% CI, 64%-75%) for rivaroxaban. Similar patterns were found for pooled persistence by agent. The pooled persistence was higher with DOACs than vitamin K antagonists (odds ratio, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.12-.86]). DOAC nonadherence was associated with an increased risk of stroke (hazard ratio, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.06-1.81]).
CONCLUSIONS
Suboptimal adherence and persistence to DOACs was common in patients with AF, with 1 in 3 patients adhering to their DOAC <80% of the time, which was associated with poor clinical outcomes in nonadherent patients. Although it is convenient that DOACs do not require laboratory monitoring, greater effort in monitoring for and interventions to prevent nonadherence may be necessary to optimize stroke prevention. Increased clinician awareness of DOAC nonadherence may help identify at-risk patients.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Aged; Atrial Fibrillation; Factor Xa Inhibitors; Female; Humans; Male; Medication Adherence; Middle Aged; Observational Studies as Topic; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Stroke; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32148102
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.119.005969 -
Annals of Internal Medicine May 2024Newer diabetes medications may have beneficial effects on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, and renal outcomes. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Newer diabetes medications may have beneficial effects on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, and renal outcomes.
PURPOSE
To evaluate the effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, and harms of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors, and long-acting insulins as monotherapy or combination therapy in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2010 through January 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
RCTs lasting at least 52 weeks that included at least 500 adults with T2DM receiving eligible medications and reported any outcomes of interest.
DATA EXTRACTION
Data were abstracted by 1 reviewer and verified by a second. Independent, dual assessments of risk of bias and certainty of evidence (CoE) were done.
DATA SYNTHESIS
A total of 130 publications from 84 RCTs were identified. CoE was appraised using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria for direct, indirect, and network meta-analysis (NMA); the highest CoE was reported. Compared with usual care, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (high CoE) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (moderate to high CoE), SGLT2 inhibitors reduce progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and heart failure hospitalizations and GLP1 agonists reduce stroke (high CoE), and SGLT2 inhibitors reduce serious adverse events and severe hypoglycemia (high CoE). The threshold for minimally important differences, which was predefined with the American College of Physicians Clinical Guidelines Committee, was not met for these outcomes. Compared with usual care, insulin, tirzepatide, and DPP4 inhibitors do not reduce all-cause mortality (low to high CoE). Compared with insulin, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (low to moderate CoE). Compared with DPP4 inhibitors, GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (moderate CoE). Compared with DPP4 inhibitors and sulfonylurea (SU), SGLT2 inhibitors reduce MACE (moderate to high CoE). Compared with SU and insulin, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce severe hypoglycemia (low to high CoE).
LIMITATIONS
Infrequent direct comparisons between drugs of interest; sparse data for NMA on most outcomes; possible incoherence due to differences in baseline patient characteristics and usual care; insufficient data on predefined subgroups, including demographic subgroups, patients with prior cardiovascular disease, and treatment-naive persons.
CONCLUSION
In adults with T2DM, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists (but not DPP4 inhibitors, insulin, or tirzepatide) reduce all-cause mortality and MACE compared with usual care. SGLT2 inhibitors reduce CKD progression and heart failure hospitalization and GLP1 agonists reduce stroke compared with usual care. Serious adverse events and severe hypoglycemia are less frequent with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists than with insulin or SU.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022322129).
Topics: Humans; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors; Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors; Hypoglycemic Agents; Network Meta-Analysis; Insulin; Adult; Cardiovascular Diseases; Glucagon-Like Peptide 1; Hypoglycemia; Drug Therapy, Combination
PubMed: 38639549
DOI: 10.7326/M23-1490 -
European Journal of Pharmacology Oct 2020Sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) is recommended for ejection fraction reduction in heart failure. However, studies comparing the effects of sacubitril/valsartan in patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) is recommended for ejection fraction reduction in heart failure. However, studies comparing the effects of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure and chronic kidney disease (CKD) with the inhibitor of renal angiotensin system (RAS) are limited. To further demonstrate the benefits of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with both heart failure and CKD, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted. The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for RCTs. A total of 3460 individuals with heart failure and CKD were included in this meta-analysis. Sacubitril/valsartan was compared with irbesartan, valsartan and enalapril. It was found that sacubitril/valsartan significantly increased estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR, MD = 1.90, 95% CI (0.30, 3.50), P = 0.02]. However, sacubitril/valsartan had no difference in urinary albumin/creatinine ratio [UACR, MD = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.38, 0.78), P = 0.59] compared to the control group. Sacubitril/valsartan showed dramatically decrease in systolic blood pressure [SBP, MD = -4.39, 95% CI (-6.11, -2.68), P < 0.001], diastolic blood pressure [DBP, MD = -2.69, 95% CI (-4.04, -1.35), P < 0.001], and N-terminal prohormone brain natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP, MD = -45.34, 95% CI (-46.63, -44.06), P < 0.001]. There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions between sacubitril/valsartan and the control group. Compared with the RAS inhibitor, sacubitril/valsartan significantly increased eGFR and decreased BP and NT-proBNP, which indicates that it might have cardiovascular and renal benefits in patients with heart failure and CKD.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Aminobutyrates; Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blockers; Biphenyl Compounds; Drug Combinations; Female; Glomerular Filtration Rate; Heart Failure; Humans; Kidney; Male; Middle Aged; Neprilysin; Protease Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Stroke Volume; Treatment Outcome; Valsartan
PubMed: 32739172
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2020.173444