-
Clinical Drug Investigation Jan 2021BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: A limited number of trials have evaluated the efficacy of a fixed-dose combination of bempedoic acid and ezetimibe for the treatment of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
UNLABELLED
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: A limited number of trials have evaluated the efficacy of a fixed-dose combination of bempedoic acid and ezetimibe for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia. The aim of this meta-analysis of existing studies was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose bempedoic acid and ezetimibe combination therapy for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing bempedoic acid and ezetimibe, versus placebo or ezetimibe alone, to 30 August 2020. A meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the efficacy of bempedoic acid and ezetimibe on lipid parameters and highly sensitive C-reactive protein (hsCRP) levels in patients with hypercholesterolemia or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Mean differences (MDs) or relative risk (RR) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using random-effects models, were used to provide pooled estimates.
RESULTS
A total of three phase II and III RCTs, comprising 388 patients, of whom 49.2% were treated with bempedoic acid and ezetimibe, and 197 controls, were identified. The duration of treatment was 12 weeks. Bempedoic acid and ezetimibe significantly reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD - 29.14%, 95% CI - 39.52 to - 18.76; p < .001), total cholesterol (MD - 15.78%, 95% CI - 20.84 to - 10.72; p = 0.01), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD - 18.36%, 95% CI - 24.60 to - 12.12; p = 0.01), and hsCRP levels (MD - 30.48%, 95% CI - 44.69 to - 16.28; p = 0.04). No significant effects on triglycerides (MD - 8.35%, 95% CI - 16.08 to - 0.63; p = 0.72) and improvement in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD 1.63%, 95% CI - 4.03 to 7.28; p = 0.92) were observed with the fixed-dose combination therapy. Regarding safety, bempedoic acid and ezetimibe combination was associated with a non-significant increased risk of drug-related adverse events (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.86-2.35) and overall adverse events (RR 1.16. 95% CI 0.97-1.35); however, the incidence of discontinuation of therapy (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.35-1.49) was lower.
CONCLUSION
This review found bempedoic acid and ezetimibe significantly lowered lipid parameters, attenuated hsCRP levels, and had an acceptable safety profile for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia and ASCVD.
Topics: Anticholesteremic Agents; Cholesterol; Cholesterol, HDL; Cholesterol, LDL; Dicarboxylic Acids; Drug Combinations; Ezetimibe; Fatty Acids; Humans; Hypercholesterolemia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Triglycerides
PubMed: 33368025
DOI: 10.1007/s40261-020-00989-1 -
Journal of Sport and Health Science Dec 2020Citrulline is one of the non-essential amino acids that is thought to improve exercise performance and reduce post-exercise muscle soreness. We conducted a systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Citrulline is one of the non-essential amino acids that is thought to improve exercise performance and reduce post-exercise muscle soreness. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effect of citrulline supplements on the post-exercise rating of perceived exertion (RPE), muscle soreness, and blood lactate levels.
METHODS
A random effects model was used to calculate the effect sizes due to the high variability in the study design and study populations of the articles included. A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed. Eligibility for study inclusion was limited to studies that were randomized controlled trials involving healthy individuals and that investigated the acute effect of citrulline supplements on RPE, muscle soreness, and blood lactate levels. The supplementation time frame was limited to 2 h before exercise. The types and number of participants, types of exercise tests performed, supplementation protocols for L-citrulline or citrulline malate, and primary (RPE and muscle soreness) and secondary (blood lactate level) study outcomes were extracted from the identified studies.
RESULTS
The analysis included 13 eligible articles including a total of 206 participants. The most frequent dosage used in the studies was 8 g of citrulline malate. Citrulline supplementation significantly reduced RPE (n = 7, p = 0.03) and muscle soreness 24-h and 48-h after post-exercise (n = 7, p = 0.04; n = 6, p = 0.25, respectively). However, citrulline supplementation did not significantly reduce muscle soreness 72-h post-exercise (n = 4, p = 0.62) or lower blood lactate levels (n = 8, p = 0.17).
CONCLUSION
Citrulline supplements significantly reduced post-exercise RPE and muscle soreness without affecting blood lactate levels.
Topics: Citrulline; Dietary Supplements; Fruit and Vegetable Juices; Humans; Lactic Acid; Malates; Myalgia; Perception; Physical Exertion; Resistance Training
PubMed: 33308806
DOI: 10.1016/j.jshs.2020.02.003 -
Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders Nov 2020The safety profile of dimethyl fumarate (DMF) for multiple sclerosis (MS) is not fully understood. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The safety profile of dimethyl fumarate (DMF) for multiple sclerosis (MS) is not fully understood.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the literature for adverse events (AE) associated with DMF for MS.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov for articles published from database inception to May/2019. Studies (observational and randomized controlled trials (RCTs)) reporting AEs, serious AEs (SAE), or discontinuation due to AEs were included. We summarized the proportion of DMF-exposed patients affected and calculated the risk ratios (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the DMF relative to placebo-exposed participants. RCT findings were pooled via meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Twenty-one observational studies, 4 RCTs, 1 RCT extension study, and 2 open-label studies were included, totalling 12,380 MS patients on DMF followed for an average of 19.8 months. Compared to placebo, DMF-exposed patients had a higher risk of grade III/IV lymphopenia (NNTH = 28.8;95%CI:20.2-50.5), pruritus (NNTH = 22.1;95%CI:14.0-52.3), flushing (NNTH = 3.7;95%CI:3.3-4.1), gastrointestinal related events (NNTH = 5.7;95%CI:3.5-15.7), nausea (NNTH = 23.4;95%CI:14.9-54.7), diarrhea (NNTH = 21.2;95%CI:13.6-47.6), and abdominal pain (NNTH = 19.2;95%CI:12.9-37.9). Patients discontinued DMF because of GI symptoms (498/5619;8.9%), lymphopenia (163/4003;4.1%), and flushing (173/4779;3.6%). From pooled analyses of 4 RCTs, AE risks were higher in the DMF versus placebo groups (RR = 1.37;95%CI:1.27-1.48), but SAEs were similar (RR = 1.01;95%CI:0.77-1.33).
CONCLUSION
Over the short-term, DMF was associated with a higher risk of AEs. The NNTH included 4 for flushing, 6 for gastrointestinal complaints, and 29 for severe or life-threatening (grade III/IV) lymphopenia. The longer-term safety of DMF, including consequences of lymphopenia remain unknown.
Topics: Dimethyl Fumarate; Humans; Multiple Sclerosis
PubMed: 33296968
DOI: 10.1016/j.msard.2020.102566 -
BMC Pharmacology & Toxicology Dec 2020Bempedoic acid is a new drug that reduces cholesterol synthesis via inhibiting ATP citrate lyase. It remains unclear whether the combination of bempedoic acid and other... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of bempedoic acid alone or combining with other lipid-lowering therapies in hypercholesterolemic patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Bempedoic acid is a new drug that reduces cholesterol synthesis via inhibiting ATP citrate lyase. It remains unclear whether the combination of bempedoic acid and other lipid-lowering drugs is better than these drugs alone. This study systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of bempedoic acid monotherapy or combination togethers in hypercholesterolemic patients.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials were searched across Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, web of science, etc. The net change scores [least squares mean (LSM) percentage change] in LDL-C level were meta-analyzed using weighted mean difference. The reductions in other lipids including total cholesterol (TC), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) and apolipoprotein (ApoB) and high sensitivity C reactive protein (hsCRP) were also assessed. Odds ratio (OR) of the incidence of adverse events (AEs) were calculated to evaluate the safety of bempedoic acid.
RESULTS
A total of 13 trials (4858 participates) were included. Pooled data showed that the combination togethers resulted in greater reductions in LDL-C level than monotherapies (bempedoic acid + statin vs. statin: LSM difference (%), - 18.37, 95% CI, - 20.16 to - 16.57, I = 0; bempedoic acid + ezetimibe vs. ezetimibe: LSM difference (%), - 18.89, 95% CI, - 29.66 to - 8.13, I = 87%). But the difference in efficacy between bempedoic acid and ezetimibe was not obvious. Meta-regression analysis showed the treatment duration was a source of heterogeneity (adj R = 16.92, 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.72). Furthermore, the background therapy of statin before screening decreased the efficacy of bempedoic acid. In addition, bempedoic acid also resulted in a significant reduction in TC, non-HDL-C, ApoB and hsCRP level. The OR of muscle-related AEs by the combination of bempedoic acid and statin was 1.29 (95% CI, 1.00 to 1.67, I = 0) when compared with statin alone.
CONCLUSION
This study showed the efficacy of combination togethers were similar but stronger than these drugs alone. Of note, a trend of high risk of muscle-related AEs by the combination of bempedoic acid and statin was observed, though it is not statistically significant, such risk is needed to be confirmed by more trials, because it is important for us to determine which is the better combinative administration for statin-intolerant patients.
Topics: Anticholesteremic Agents; Dicarboxylic Acids; Drug Therapy, Combination; Fatty Acids; Humans; Hypercholesterolemia; Hypolipidemic Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33276805
DOI: 10.1186/s40360-020-00463-w -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Renin inhibitors (RIs) reduce blood pressure more than placebo, with the magnitude of this effect thought to be similar to that for angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Renin inhibitors (RIs) reduce blood pressure more than placebo, with the magnitude of this effect thought to be similar to that for angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. However, a drug's efficacy in lowering blood pressure cannot be considered as a definitive indicator of its effectiveness in reducing mortality and morbidity. The effectiveness and safety of RIs compared to ACE inhibitors in treating hypertension is unknown.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of renin inhibitors compared to ACE inhibitors in people with primary hypertension.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Hypertension Group Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to August 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers about further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized, active-controlled, double-blinded studies (RCTs) with at least four weeks follow-up in people with primary hypertension, which compared renin inhibitors with ACE inhibitors and reported morbidity, mortality, adverse events or blood pressure outcomes. We excluded people with proven secondary hypertension.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risks of bias and entered the data for analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We include 11 RCTs involving 13,627 participants, with a mean baseline age from 51.5 to 74.2 years. Follow-up duration ranged from four weeks to 36.6 months. There was no difference between RIs and ACE inhibitors for the outcomes: all-cause mortality: risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.18; 5 RCTs, 5962 participants; low-certainty evidence; total myocardial infarction: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.22 to 3.39; 2 RCTs, 957 participants; very low-certainty evidence; adverse events: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.03; 10 RTCs, 6007 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; serious adverse events: RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.64; 10 RTCs, 6007 participants; low-certainty evidence; and withdrawal due to adverse effects: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.06; 10 RTCs, 6008 participants; low-certainty evidence. No data were available for total cardiovascular events, heart failure, stroke, end-stage renal disease or change in heart rate. Low-certainty evidence suggested that RIs reduced systolic blood pressure: mean difference (MD) -1.72, 95% CI -2.47 to -0.97; 9 RCTs, 5001 participants; and diastolic blood pressure: MD -1.18, 95% CI -1.65 to -0.72; 9 RCTs, 5001 participants, to a greater extent than ACE inhibitors, but we judged this to be more likely due to bias than a true effect. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For the treatment of hypertension, we have low certainty that renin inhibitors (RI) and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors do not differ for all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction. We have low to moderate certainty that they do not differ for adverse events. Small reductions in blood pressure with renin inhibitors compared to ACE inhibitors are of low certainty. More independent, large, long-term trials are needed to compare RIs with ACE inhibitors, particularly assessing morbidity and mortality outcomes, but also on blood pressure-lowering effect.
Topics: Aged; Amides; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Antihypertensive Agents; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cause of Death; Female; Fumarates; Heart Rate; Humans; Irbesartan; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Lisinopril; Male; Middle Aged; Myocardial Infarction; Patient Dropouts; Ramipril; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Renin
PubMed: 33089502
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012569.pub2 -
Journal of Evidence-based Medicine Nov 2020The effects of topical azelaic acid, salicylic acid, nicotinamide, sulfur, zinc, and fruit acid (alpha-hydroxy acid) for acne are unclear. We aimed to assess the effects...
Evidence-based topical treatments (azelaic acid, salicylic acid, nicotinamide, sulfur, zinc, and fruit acid) for acne: an abridged version of a Cochrane systematic review.
OBJECTIVE
The effects of topical azelaic acid, salicylic acid, nicotinamide, sulfur, zinc, and fruit acid (alpha-hydroxy acid) for acne are unclear. We aimed to assess the effects of these topical treatments by collecting randomized controlled trials.
METHODS
We searched The Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS up to May 2019. We also searched five trials registers. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Meta analyses were performed by using Review Manager 5 software.
RESULTS
We included a total of 49 trials involving 3880 participants. In terms of treatment response (measured using participants' global self-assessment of acne improvement, PGA), azelaic acid was probably less effective than benzoyl peroxide (RR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.72-0.95). However, there was probably little or no difference in PGA when comparing azelaic acid to tretinoin (RR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.78-1.14). There may be little or no difference when comparing salicylic acid to tretinoin (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.92-1.09). There were no studies measured PGA when evaluating nicotinamide. With respect to alpha-hydroxy acid, there may be no difference in PGA when comparing glycolic acid to salicylic-mandelic acid (RR = 1.06, 95% CI 0.88-1.26). We were uncertain about the effects of sulfur and zinc. Adverse events associated with these topical treatments were always mild and transient.
CONCLUSIONS
Moderate-quality evidence was available for azelaic acid and low- to very-low-quality evidence for other topical treatments. Risk of bias and imprecision limit our confidence in the evidence.
Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Administration, Cutaneous; Dermatologic Agents; Dicarboxylic Acids; Fruit; Glycolates; Humans; Niacinamide; Salicylic Acid; Sulfur; Treatment Outcome; Zinc
PubMed: 33034949
DOI: 10.1111/jebm.12411 -
Cardiovascular Diabetology Aug 2020Bempedoic acid is an oral, once-daily, first-in-class drug being developed for the treatment of hyperlipidemia. However, evidence of bempedoic acid use for the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Bempedoic acid is an oral, once-daily, first-in-class drug being developed for the treatment of hyperlipidemia. However, evidence of bempedoic acid use for the prevention of cardiovascular events and diabetes is lacking. Thus, we aim to evaluate the benefit and safety of bempedoic acid use for the prevention of cardiovascular events and diabetes.
METHODS
We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials with no language restriction from inception until March 3, 2020. Pairs of reviewers independently identified randomized controlled trials comparing the use of bempedoic acid with placebo or no treatment for primary prevention of cardiovascular events in statin-intolerant patients with hypercholesterolemia. The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiac events, and percent change in LDL-C.
RESULTS
We identified 11 trials including a total of 4391 participants. Bempedoic acid use was associated with a reduction in composite cardiovascular outcome (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.56-0.99; I = 0%). Bempedoic acid reduced LDL-C levels (MD - 22.91, 95% CI - 27.35 to - 18.47; I = 99%), and similarly reduced CRP levels (MD -24.70, 95% CI - 32.10 to - 17.30; I = 53%). Bempedoic acid was associated with a reduction in rates of new-onset or worsening diabetes (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44-0.96; I = 23%).
CONCLUSIONS
Bempedoic acid in patients with hypercholesterolemia was associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events and diabetes.
Topics: Aged; Biomarkers; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cholesterol, LDL; Diabetes Mellitus; Dicarboxylic Acids; Down-Regulation; Fatty Acids; Female; Humans; Hypercholesterolemia; Hypolipidemic Agents; Male; Middle Aged; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32787939
DOI: 10.1186/s12933-020-01101-9 -
Journal of the American Heart... Aug 2020Background Bempedoic acid (BA) is a novel lipid-lowering drug. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on efficacy and safety of BA compared with standard... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Background Bempedoic acid (BA) is a novel lipid-lowering drug. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on efficacy and safety of BA compared with standard treatment in patients with hypercholesterolemia. Methods and Results Studies were systematically searched in the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and EMBASE databases. Efficacy outcome was represented by percentage changes (mean difference [MD] with pertinent 95% CIs) in total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and hs-CRP (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein) in BA patients and controls. Seven studies were included (2767 BA-treated patients and 1469 controls), showing a more significant reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD, -17.5%; 95% CI, -22.9% to -12.0%), total cholesterol (MD, -10.9%; 95% CI, -13.3% to -8.5%), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD, -12.3%; 95% CI, -15.3% to -9.20%), apolipoprotein B (MD, -10.6%; 95% CI, -13.2% to -8.02%), and hs-CRP (MD, -13.2%; 95% CI, -16.7% to -9.79%) in BA-treated patients compared with controls. Results were confirmed when separately analyzing studies on patients with high cardiovascular risk, studies on statin-intolerant patients, and studies on patients with hypercholesterolemia on maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy. BA-treated subjects reported a higher rate of treatment discontinuation caused by adverse effects, of gout flare, and of increase in uric acid compared with controls. On the other hand, BA-treated patients showed a lower incidence of new-onset diabetes mellitus than controls. Conclusions BA is associated with a significant reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and hs-CRP compared with standard treatment. Documented efficacy is accompanied by an acceptable safety profile.
Topics: Dicarboxylic Acids; Fatty Acids; Humans; Hypercholesterolemia; Hypolipidemic Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32689862
DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.119.016262 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Anaemia is a condition where the number of red blood cells (and consequently their oxygen-carrying capacity) is insufficient to meet the body's physiologic needs.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Anaemia is a condition where the number of red blood cells (and consequently their oxygen-carrying capacity) is insufficient to meet the body's physiologic needs. Fortification of wheat flour is deemed a useful strategy to reduce anaemia in populations.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the benefits and harms of wheat flour fortification with iron alone or with other vitamins and minerals on anaemia, iron status and health-related outcomes in populations over two years of age.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and other databases up to 4 September 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included cluster- or individually randomised controlled trials (RCT) carried out among the general population from any country aged two years and above. The interventions were fortification of wheat flour with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients. Trials comparing any type of food item prepared from flour fortified with iron of any variety of wheat were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the search results and assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data from included studies and assessed risk of bias. We followed Cochrane methods in this review.
MAIN RESULTS
Our search identified 3048 records, after removing duplicates. We included nine trials, involving 3166 participants, carried out in Bangladesh, Brazil, India, Kuwait, Phillipines, Sri Lanka and South Africa. The duration of interventions varied from 3 to 24 months. One study was carried out among adult women and one trial among both children and nonpregnant women. Most of the included trials were assessed as low or unclear risk of bias for key elements of selection, performance or reporting bias. Three trials used 41 mg to 60 mg iron/kg flour, two trials used less than 40 mg iron/kg and three trials used more than 60 mg iron/kg flour. One trial employed various iron levels based on type of iron used: 80 mg/kg for electrolytic and reduced iron and 40 mg/kg for ferrous fumarate. All included studies contributed data for the meta-analyses. Seven studies compared wheat flour fortified with iron alone versus unfortified wheat flour, three studies compared wheat flour fortified with iron in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified wheat flour and two studies compared wheat flour fortified with iron in combination with other micronutrients versus fortified wheat flour with the same micronutrients (but not iron). No studies included a 'no intervention' comparison arm. None of the included trials reported any other adverse side effects (including constipation, nausea, vomiting, heartburn or diarrhoea). Wheat flour fortified with iron alone versus unfortified wheat flour (no micronutrients added) Wheat flour fortification with iron alone may have little or no effect on anaemia (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.07; 5 studies; 2200 participants; low-certainty evidence). It probably makes little or no difference on iron deficiency (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.07; 3 studies; 633 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and we are uncertain about whether wheat flour fortified with iron increases haemoglobin concentrations by an average 3.30 (g/L) (95% CI 0.86 to 5.74; 7 studies; 2355 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No trials reported data on adverse effects in children, except for risk of infection or inflammation at the individual level. The intervention probably makes little or no difference to risk of Infection or inflammation at individual level as measured by C-reactive protein (CRP) (moderate-certainty evidence). Wheat flour fortified with iron in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified wheat flour (no micronutrients added) Wheat flour fortified with iron, in combination with other micronutrients, may or may not decrease anaemia (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.31; 2 studies; 322 participants; low-certainty evidence). It makes little or no difference to average risk of iron deficiency (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.00; 3 studies; 387 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may or may not increase average haemoglobin concentrations (mean difference (MD) 3.29, 95% CI -0.78 to 7.36; 3 studies; 384 participants; low-certainty evidence). No trials reported data on adverse effects in children. Wheat flour fortified with iron in combination with other micronutrients versus fortified wheat flour with same micronutrients (but not iron) Given the very low certainty of the evidence, the review authors are uncertain about the effects of wheat flour fortified with iron in combination with other micronutrients versus fortified wheat flour with same micronutrients (but not iron) in reducing anaemia (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.71; 1 study; 127 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in reducing iron deficiency (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.97; 1 study; 127 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The intervention may make little or no difference to the average haemoglobin concentration (MD 0.81, 95% CI -1.28 to 2.89; 2 studies; 488 participants; low-certainty evidence). No trials reported data on the adverse effects in children. Eight out of nine trials reported source of funding with most having multiple sources. Funding source does not appear to have distorted the results in any of the assessed trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Eating food items containing wheat flour fortified with iron alone may have little or no effect on anaemia and probably makes little or no difference in iron deficiency. We are uncertain on whether the intervention with wheat flour fortified with iron increases haemoglobin concentrations improve blood haemoglobin concentrations. Consuming food items prepared from wheat flour fortified with iron, in combination with other micronutrients, has little or no effect on anaemia, makes little or no difference to iron deficiency and may or may not improve haemoglobin concentrations. In comparison to fortified flour with micronutrients but no iron, wheat flour fortified with iron with other micronutrients, the effects on anaemia and iron deficiency are uncertain as certainty of the evidence has been assessed as very low. The intervention may make little or no difference to the average haemoglobin concentrations in the population. None of the included trials reported any other adverse side effects. The effects of this intervention on other health outcomes are unclear.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anemia; Child; Child, Preschool; Edetic Acid; Female; Ferric Compounds; Ferrous Compounds; Flour; Food, Fortified; Fumarates; Hemoglobin A; Humans; Infant; Iron; Iron Deficiencies; Male; Micronutrients; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Triticum; Young Adult
PubMed: 32677706
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011302.pub2 -
PLoS Medicine Jul 2020Bempedoic acid is a first-in-class lipid-lowering drug recommended by guidelines for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia. Our objective was to estimate its average... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Bempedoic acid is a first-in-class lipid-lowering drug recommended by guidelines for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia. Our objective was to estimate its average effect on plasma lipids in humans and its safety profile.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of phase II and III randomized controlled trials on bempedoic acid (PROSPERO: CRD42019129687). PubMed (Medline), Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science databases were searched, with no language restriction, from inception to 5 August 2019. We included 10 RCTs (n = 3,788) comprising 26 arms (active arm [n = 2,460]; control arm [n = 1,328]). Effect sizes for changes in lipids and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) serum concentration were expressed as mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For safety analyses, odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Bempedoic acid significantly reduced total cholesterol (MD -14.94%; 95% CI -17.31%, -12.57%; p < 0.001), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD -18.17%; 95% CI -21.14%, -15.19%; p < 0.001), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD -22.94%; 95% CI -26.63%, -19.25%; p < 0.001), low-density lipoprotein particle number (MD -20.67%; 95% CI -23.84%, -17.48%; p < 0.001), apolipoprotein B (MD -15.18%; 95% CI -17.41%, -12.95%; p < 0.001), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD -5.83%; 95% CI -6.14%, -5.52%; p < 0.001), high-density lipoprotein particle number (MD -3.21%; 95% CI -6.40%, -0.02%; p = 0.049), and hsCRP (MD -27.03%; 95% CI -31.42%, -22.64%; p < 0.001). Bempedoic acid did not significantly modify triglyceride level (MD -1.51%; 95% CI -3.75%, 0.74%; p = 0.189), very-low-density lipoprotein particle number (MD 3.79%; 95% CI -9.81%, 17.39%; p = 0.585), and apolipoprotein A-1 (MD -1.83%; 95% CI -5.23%, 1.56%; p = 0.290). Treatment with bempedoic acid was positively associated with an increased risk of discontinuation of treatment (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.06, 1.76; p = 0.015), elevated serum uric acid (OR 3.55; 95% CI 1.03, 12.27; p = 0.045), elevated liver enzymes (OR 4.28; 95% CI 1.34, 13.71; p = 0.014), and elevated creatine kinase (OR 3.79; 95% CI 1.06, 13.51; p = 0.04), though it was strongly associated with a decreased risk of new onset or worsening diabetes (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.39, 0.90; p = 0.01). The main limitation of this meta-analysis is related to the relatively small number of individuals involved in the studies, which were often short or middle term in length.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results show that bempedoic acid has favorable effects on lipid profile and hsCRP levels and an acceptable safety profile. Further well-designed studies are needed to explore its longer-term safety.
Topics: Anticholesteremic Agents; Apolipoproteins B; Cholesterol; Cholesterol, LDL; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Dicarboxylic Acids; Fatty Acids; Humans; Hypercholesterolemia; Peptide Fragments; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32673317
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003121