-
BMC Ophthalmology Jun 2024The purpose of this review was to examine if dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP4i) use affects the risk of diabetic retinopathy (DR). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this review was to examine if dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP4i) use affects the risk of diabetic retinopathy (DR).
METHODS
Cohort studies published up to 20th July 2023 in the databases of PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched. The adjusted effect size was pooled to calculate the odds ratio (OR).
RESULTS
Seven studies were included. Meta-analysis showed that the use of DPP4i was not associated with any significant change in the risk of DR (OR: 0.86 95% CI: 0.70, 1.06 I = 78%). The pooled analysis also found that DPP4i use was not associated with any significant risk of progression of DR (OR: 0.87 95% CI: 0.47, 1.59 I = 86%). The results did not change during sensitivity analysis.
CONCLUSION
Present evidence from a limited number of real-world studies shows that DPP4i may not affect the incidence and progression of DR. There is a need for further studies from different countries using accurate definitions of DR and its progression to validate the current results.
Topics: Humans; Diabetic Retinopathy; Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors; Incidence; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Risk Factors; Disease Progression
PubMed: 38943083
DOI: 10.1186/s12886-024-03535-1 -
Scientific Reports Jun 2024This review used traditional and network meta-analyses (NMA) to conduct a comprehensive study of antithrombotic therapies in children with thromboembolic disease. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This review used traditional and network meta-analyses (NMA) to conduct a comprehensive study of antithrombotic therapies in children with thromboembolic disease. We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov databases from their inception to 26 February, 2023. And we finally included 16 randomized controlled trials. In the prevention of thromboembolic events (TEs), the use of anticoagulants had a low risk of TEs (relative risk (RR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.94) and a high risk of minor bleeding (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.86) compared with no anticoagulants. In the treatment of TEs, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were not inferior to standard anticoagulation in terms of efficacy and safety outcomes. In NMA, rivaroxaban and apixaban showed the lowest risk for TEs and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. According to the overall assessment of efficacy and safety, dabigatran may be the best choice for children with thromboembolic disease. The results of our study will provide references and suggestions for clinical drug selection.
Topics: Humans; Child; Thromboembolism; Fibrinolytic Agents; Hemorrhage; Anticoagulants; Treatment Outcome; Pyrazoles; Dabigatran; Rivaroxaban; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Pyridones
PubMed: 38862574
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-64334-8 -
Reviews in Medical Virology Jul 2024This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of azvudine versus nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) in treating coronavirus... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of azvudine versus nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) in treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The researchers conducted searches on PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, medRxiv, and Google Scholar until January 2024. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was utilised to evaluate the quality of the included studies, and data analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. Thirteen studies, including 4949 patients, were analysed. The meta-analysis results showed no significant difference between the azvudine and Paxlovid groups in terms of mortality rate (odds rate [OR] = 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-1.21), negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) conversion time (standard mean difference [SMD] = 1.52, 95% CI: -1.07-4.11), and hospital stay (SMD = -0.39, 95% CI: -1.12-0.33). However, a significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of intensive care unit admission (OR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.23-0.75) and the need for mechanical ventilation (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.44-0.86) in favour of azvudine. The incidence of adverse events in the azvudine group was significantly lower (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.43-0.99). The certainty of evidence was rated as low and moderate. Azvudine and Paxlovid demonstrated similar effectiveness in reducing mortality rates, negative PCR conversion time and hospital stay. However, azvudine showed better effectiveness in improving other outcomes. Regarding the level of certainty of evidence, further research is needed to validate or challenge these results.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Antiviral Agents; SARS-CoV-2; Ritonavir; Drug Combinations; COVID-19; Lopinavir; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38849982
DOI: 10.1002/rmv.2551 -
Renal Failure Dec 2024To determine the efficacy and safety of Astragalus combined with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockers in treating stage III diabetic nephropathy (DN) by... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy of astragalus combined with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockers in the treatment of stage III diabetic nephropathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the efficacy and safety of Astragalus combined with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockers in treating stage III diabetic nephropathy (DN) by meta-analysis.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Wiley, and Web of Science databases were searched for articles published between August 2007 and August 2022. Clinical studies on Astragalus combined with RAAS blockers for the treatment of stage III DN were included. Meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.1 and Stata 14.3 software.
RESULTS
A total of 32 papers were included in this meta-analysis, containing 2462 patients from randomized controlled trials, with 1244 receiving the combination treatment and 1218 solely receiving RAAS blockers. Astragalus combined with RAAS blockers yielded a significantly higher total effective rate (TER) (mean difference [MD] 3.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.59-5.09) and significantly reduced urinary protein excretion rate (UPER), serum creatinine (Scr), blood urine nitrogen (BUN) and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbAlc) levels. In subgroup analysis, combining astragalus and angiotensin receptor blocker significantly lowered fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and 24 h urinary protein (24hUTP) levels, compared with the combined astragalus and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor treatment. Meanwhile, the latter significantly decreased the urinary microprotein (β-MG). Importantly, the sensitivity analysis confirmed the study's stability, and publication bias was not detected for UPER, BUN, HbAlc, FPG, or β-MG. However, the TER, SCr, and 24hUTP results suggested possible publication bias.
CONCLUSIONS
The astragalus-RAAS blocker combination treatment is safe and improves outcomes; however, rigorous randomized, large-scale, multi-center, double-blind trials are needed to evaluate its efficacy and safety in stage III DN.
Topics: Humans; Diabetic Nephropathies; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Renin-Angiotensin System; Drug Therapy, Combination; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Astragalus Plant; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Treatment Outcome; Creatinine; Glycated Hemoglobin; Proteinuria
PubMed: 38836372
DOI: 10.1080/0886022X.2024.2359033 -
JAMA Jun 2024Concerns have arisen that renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers are less effective in Black patients than non-Black patients with heart failure and reduced ejection... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Concerns have arisen that renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers are less effective in Black patients than non-Black patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether the effects of RAS blockers on cardiovascular outcomes differ between Black patients and non-Black patients with HFrEF.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE and Embase databases through December 31, 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized trials investigating the effect of RAS blockers on cardiovascular outcomes in adults with HFrEF that enrolled Black and non-Black patients.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Individual-participant data were extracted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Independent Personal Data (PRISMA-IPD) reporting guidelines. Effects were estimated using a mixed-effects model using a 1-stage approach.
MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE
The primary outcome was first hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death.
RESULTS
The primary analysis, based on the 3 placebo-controlled RAS inhibitor monotherapy trials, included 8825 patients (9.9% Black). Rates of death and hospitalization for HF were substantially higher in Black than non-Black patients. The hazard ratio (HR) for RAS blockade vs placebo for the primary composite was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.69-1.03) in Black patients and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.67-0.79) in non-Black patients (P for interaction = .14). The HR for first HF hospitalization was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.70-1.13) in Black patients and 0.62 (95% CI, 0.56-0.69) in non-Black patients (P for interaction = .006). Conversely, the corresponding HRs for cardiovascular death were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.65-1.07) and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.77-0.93), respectively (P for interaction = .99). For total hospitalizations for HF and cardiovascular deaths, the corresponding rate ratios were 0.82 (95% CI, 0.66-1.02) and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.66-0.80), respectively (P for interaction = .27). The supportive analyses including the 2 trials adding an angiotensin receptor blocker to background angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor treatment (n = 16 383) gave consistent findings.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The mortality benefit from RAS blockade was similar in Black and non-Black patients. Despite the smaller relative risk reduction in hospitalization for HF with RAS blockade in Black patients, the absolute benefit in Black patients was comparable with non-Black patients because of the greater incidence of this outcome in Black patients.
Topics: Heart Failure; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Hospitalization; Renin-Angiotensin System; Stroke Volume; Black or African American
PubMed: 38809561
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2024.6774 -
Lipids in Health and Disease May 2024About 20-40% patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) had an increased risk of developing diabetic nephropathy (DN). Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) were... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
About 20-40% patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) had an increased risk of developing diabetic nephropathy (DN). Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) were recommended for treatment of T2DM, while the impact of DPP-4i on renal function remained unclear. This study aimed to explore the effect of DPP-4i on renal parameter of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) in T2DM.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed across PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library. A fixed or random-effects model was used for quantitative synthesis according to the heterogeneity, which was assessed with I index. Sensitivity analysis and publication bias were performed with standard methods, respectively.
RESULTS
A total of 17 randomized controlled trials were identified. Administration of DPP-4i produced no significant effect on eGFR (WMD, -0.92 mL/min/1.73m, 95% CI, -2.04 to 0.19) in diabetic condition. DPP-4i produced a favorable effect on attenuating ACR (WMD, -2.76 mg/g, 95% CI, -5.23 to -0.29) in patients with T2DM. The pooled estimate was stable based on the sensitivity test. No publication bias was observed according to Begg's and Egger's tests.
CONCLUSIONS
Treatment with DPP-4i preserved the renal parameter of eGFR in diabetic condition. Available evidences suggested that administration of DPP-4i produced a favorable effect on attenuating ACR in patients with T2DM. INTERNATIONAL PROSPECTIVE REGISTER FOR SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (PROSPERO) NUMBER: CRD.42020144642.
Topics: Humans; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors; Glomerular Filtration Rate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Diabetic Nephropathies; Kidney; Creatinine
PubMed: 38796440
DOI: 10.1186/s12944-024-02132-x -
Renal Failure Dec 2024This review aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of apixaban vs. vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients on dialysis. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This review aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of apixaban vs. vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients on dialysis.
METHODS
All types of studies published on PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and Web of Science up to 10 September 2023 and comparing outcomes of apixaban vs. VKA in dialysis patients were eligible.
RESULTS
Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and six retrospective studies were included. Apixaban treatment was associated with significantly lower risk of major bleeding (RR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.48, 0.77; = 50%) and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (RR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68, 0.98, = 9%) compared to VKA. Meta-analysis also showed that the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (RR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.64, 0.85, = 16%) and intracranial bleeding (RR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.49, 0.84, = 0%) was significantly reduced with apixaban. Meta-analysis showed no difference in the risk of ischemic stroke (RR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.06, 2.69, = 0%), mortality (RR: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.74, 2.16, = 94%) and recurrent venous thromboembolism (RR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.87, 1.21, = 0%) between the two groups. Subgroup analysis of RCTs showed no difference in bleeding outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Low-quality evidence from a mix of RCTs and retrospective studies shows that apixaban may have better safety and equivalent efficacy as compared to VKA in dialysis patients. Apixaban treatment correlated with significantly reduced risk of major bleeding and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding in observational studies but not in RCTs. The predominance of retrospective data warrants caution in the interpretation of results.
Topics: Humans; Anticoagulants; Factor Xa Inhibitors; Hemorrhage; Pyrazoles; Pyridones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Renal Dialysis; Vitamin K
PubMed: 38770962
DOI: 10.1080/0886022X.2024.2349114 -
Medicine May 2024Incretin-based drugs, a class of Antidiabetic medications (ADMs) used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes, may affect the incidence of prostate cancer (PCa). But... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Incretin-based drugs, a class of Antidiabetic medications (ADMs) used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes, may affect the incidence of prostate cancer (PCa). But real-world evidence for this possible effect is lacking. Therefore, the aim of this study is to assess the effect of incretin-based drugs on the incidence of PCa, including glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for eligible studies through September 2023. Two independent reviewers performed screening and data extraction. We used the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) to assess the quality of included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. We did a meta-analysis of available trial data to calculate overall risk ratios (RRs) for PCa. A total of 1238 articles were identified in our search. After screening for eligibility, 7 high-quality studies met the criteria for meta-analysis, including 2 RCTs and 5 cohort studies, with a total of 1165,738 patients. Compared with the control group, we found that incretin-based drugs reduced the relative risk of PCa by 35% (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.17-0.49; P = .0006). In subgroup analysis, the RR values for GLP-1 receptor agonists and DPP-4 inhibitors were 62% (95% CI, 0.45-0.85; P = .003) and 72% (95% CI, 0.46-1.12; P = .14), respectively. Incretin-based drugs are associated with lower incidence of prostate cancer and may have a preventive effect on prostate cancer in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Topics: Humans; Male; Prostatic Neoplasms; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Incidence; Incretins; Hypoglycemic Agents; Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors
PubMed: 38758855
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000038018 -
Heart & Lung : the Journal of Critical... 2024Since the introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and their comparison with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), conflicting results have been reported regarding the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants compared with vitamin-k antagonists in the treatment of left ventricular thrombosis. A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Since the introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and their comparison with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), conflicting results have been reported regarding the optimal treatment for left ventricular thrombosis (LVT).
OBJECTIVES
In this meta-analysis, we intend to comprehensively evaluate the safety and efficacy of these treatments.
METHODS
All clinical trials and cohorts that compared the efficacy or safety of VKAs with DOACs in the treatment of LVTs were systematically searched until April 15, 2023.
RESULTS
The results of 32 studies with a pooled sample size of 4213 patients were extracted for meta-analysis. DOACs, especially rivaroxaban and apixaban, cause faster resolution, lower mortality, and fewer complications (SSE and bleeding events) than VKAs in the management of LVTs.
CONCLUSION
Compared with VKAs, DOACs result in significantly faster (only rivaroxaban) and safer resolution of left ventricular thrombosis.
Topics: Humans; Vitamin K; Thrombosis; Heart Ventricles; Administration, Oral; Anticoagulants; Factor Xa Inhibitors; Rivaroxaban; Heart Diseases; Pyrazoles; Pyridones
PubMed: 38754272
DOI: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2024.04.019 -
Pharmacotherapy May 2024Previous meta-analyses assessed andexanet alfa (AA) or prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) products for the treatment of Factor Xa inhibitor (FXaI)-associated major... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review Comparative Study
Previous meta-analyses assessed andexanet alfa (AA) or prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) products for the treatment of Factor Xa inhibitor (FXaI)-associated major bleeding. However, they did not include recent studies or assess the impact of the risk of bias. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis on the effectiveness of AA versus PCC products for FXaI-associated major bleeding, inclusive of the studies' risk of bias. PubMed and Embase were searched for comparative studies assessing major bleeding in patients using FXaI who received AA or PCC. We used the Methodological Index for NOn-Randomized Studies (MINORS) checklist and one question from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal of Case Series tool to assess the risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to provide a pooled estimate for the effect of AA versus PCC products on hemostatic efficacy, in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and thrombotic events. Low-moderate risk of bias studies were meta-analyzed separately, as well as combined with high risk of bias studies. Eighteen comparative evaluations of AA versus PCC were identified. Twenty-eight percent of the studies (n = 5) had low-moderate risk and 72% (n = 13) had a high risk of bias. Studies with low-moderate risk of bias suggested improvements in hemostatic efficacy [Odds Ratio (OR) 2.72 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.15-6.44); one study], lower in-hospital mortality [OR 0.48 (95% CI: 0.38-0.61); three studies], and reduced 30-day mortality [OR 0.49 (95% CI: 0.30-0.80); two studies] when AA was used versus PCC products. When studies were included regardless of the risk of bias, pooled effects showed improvements in hemostatic efficacy [OR 1.36 (95% CI: 1.01-1.84); 12 studies] and reductions in 30-day mortality [OR 0.53 (95% CI: 0.37-0.76); six studies] for AA versus PCC. The difference in thrombotic events with AA versus PCC was not statistically significant in the low-moderate, high, or combined risk of bias groups. The evidence from low-moderate quality real-world studies suggests that AA is superior to PCC in enhancing hemostatic efficacy and reducing in-hospital and 30-day mortality. When studies are assessed regardless of the risk of bias, the pooled hemostatic efficacy and 30-day mortality risk remain significantly better with AA versus PCC.
Topics: Humans; Factor Xa Inhibitors; Hemorrhage; Factor Xa; Blood Coagulation Factors; Recombinant Proteins; Hospital Mortality
PubMed: 38721837
DOI: 10.1002/phar.2925