-
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders Jun 2024Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a well-established treatment for high and intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). Recent studies...
BACKGROUND
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a well-established treatment for high and intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). Recent studies have demonstrated non-inferiority of TAVI compared to surgery in low-risk patients. In the past decade, numerous literature reviews (SLRs) have assessed the use of TAVI in different risk groups. This is the first attempt to provide an overview of SRs (OoSRs) focusing on secondary studies reporting clinical outcomes/process indicators. This research aims to summarize the findings of extant literature on the performance of TAVI over time.
METHODS
A literature search took place from inception to April 2024. We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library for SLRs. SLRs reporting at least one review of clinical indicators were included. Subsequently, a two-step inclusion process was conducted: [1] screening based on title and abstracts and [2] screening based on full-text papers. Relevant data were extracted and the quality of the reviews was assessed.
RESULTS
We included 33 SLRs with different risks assessed via the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score. Mortality rates were comparable between TAVI and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR) groups. TAVI is associated with lower rates of major bleeding, acute kidney injury (AKI) incidence, and new-onset atrial fibrillation. Vascular complications, pacemaker implantation, and residual aortic regurgitation were more frequent in TAVI patients.
CONCLUSION
This study summarizes TAVI performance findings over a decade, revealing a shift to include both high and low-risk patients since 2020. Overall, TAVI continues to evolve, emphasizing improved outcomes, broader indications, and addressing challenges.
Topics: Humans; Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement; Aortic Valve Stenosis; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome; Risk Assessment; Aortic Valve; Postoperative Complications; Time Factors; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 38907344
DOI: 10.1186/s12872-024-03980-2 -
Journal of Ovarian Research Jun 2024This study was aimed to systematically evaluate the efficacy of artificial cycle-prepared frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) with or without gonadotrophin-releasing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
This study was aimed to systematically evaluate the efficacy of artificial cycle-prepared frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) with or without gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) pretreatment for women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).
METHODS
The analysis was carried out by searching the PubMed, EMBASE, and CNKI databases with a combination of keywords before October 2021. The available studies of the effects of GnRH-a pretreatment or no pretreatment on FET in PCOS patients were considered. The risk ratios (RRs) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated with using subgroups and sensitivity analysis. The quality evaluation for this analysis was followed.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies including 3646 women were analyzed. GnRH-a pretreatment was significantly associated with a higher implantation rate (RR = 1.12, 95%CI: 1.00-1.24) and clinical pregnancy rate (RR = 1.19, 95%CI: 1.08-1.32) than the placebo. Moreover, in the GnRH-a pretreatment group, significant differences were detected for increasing the endometrium thickness among PCOS patients (SMD = 0.56, 95%CI: 0.20-0.92). However, for RCTs subgroup, no differences were observed, even after sensitivity analyses. In addition, the miscarriage rates, ectopic pregnancy rates, multiple pregnancy rates, and live birth rates were similar in both two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Endometrial preparation using GnRH agonist pretreatment prior to FET seems to be the better choice for PCOS patients. However, well-designed RCTs are required for confirmation.
Topics: Humans; Polycystic Ovary Syndrome; Female; Embryo Transfer; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Cryopreservation; Fertilization in Vitro
PubMed: 38907340
DOI: 10.1186/s13048-024-01410-7 -
BMC Anesthesiology Jun 2024Dexmedetomidine and midazolam are commonly used sedatives in children. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and effectiveness of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Dexmedetomidine and midazolam are commonly used sedatives in children. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and effectiveness of sedation provided by dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam versus other sedatives including chloral hydrate, midazolam and other sedatives in pediatric sedation.
METHODS
The Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and PubMed databases, and Clinicaltrials.gov register of controlled trials were searched from inception to June 2022. All randomized controlled trials used dexmedetomidine-midazolam in pediatric sedation were enrolled. The articles search, data extraction, and quality assessment of included studies were performed independently by two researchers. The success rate of sedation was considered as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included onset time of sedation, recovery time of sedation and occurrence of adverse events.
RESULTS
A total of 522 studies were screened and 6 RCTs were identified; 859 patients were analyzed. The administration of dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam was associated with a higher sedation success rate and a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting in computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, Auditory Brainstem Response test or fiberoptic bronchoscopy examinations than the other sedatives did (OR = 2.92; 95% CI: 1.39-6.13, P = 0.005, I = 51%; OR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.07-0.68, P = 0.008, I = 0%, respectively). Two groups did not differ significantly in recovery time and the occurrence of adverse reactions (WMD = - 0.27, 95% CI: - 0.93 to - 0.39, P = 0.42; OR 0.70; 95% CI: 0.48-1.02, P = 0.06, I = 45%. respectively). However, the results of the subgroup analysis of ASA I-II children showed a quicker onset time in dexmedetomidine-midazolam group than the other sedatives (WMD=-3.08; 95% CI: -4.66 to - 1.49, P = 0.0001, I = 30%).
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis showed that compared with the control group, dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam group provided higher sedation success rates and caused a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting in completing examinations, indicating a prospective outpatient clinical application for procedural sedation.
Topics: Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Midazolam; Child; Drug Therapy, Combination; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38907338
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-024-02570-1 -
Medicine Jun 2024No meta-analysis has holistically analyzed and summarized the therapeutic efficacy and safety of albiglutide in type 2 diabetes (T2D). This meta-analysis addresses this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
No meta-analysis has holistically analyzed and summarized the therapeutic efficacy and safety of albiglutide in type 2 diabetes (T2D). This meta-analysis addresses this knowledge gap.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials involving patients with T2D receiving albiglutide in the intervention arm and either a placebo or an active comparator in the control arm were searched through electronic databases. The primary outcome was the change from baseline (CFB) in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c); secondary outcomes included CFB in fasting plasma glucose, body weight, and adverse events (AE).
RESULTS
From 443 initially screened articles, data from 12 randomized controlled trials involving 6423 subjects were analyzed. Albiglutide, at both doses, outperformed placebo in terms of HbA1c reductions (for albiglutide 30 mg: mean differences -1.04%, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-1.37--0.72], P < .00001, I2 = 89%; and for albiglutide 50 mg: mean differences -1.10%, 95% CI [-1.45--0.75], P < .00001, I2 = 90%). Higher proportions of subjects achieved HbA1c < 7% in the albiglutide arm than in placebo (for albiglutide 30 mg: odds ratio 6.26, 95% CI [2.50-15.70], P < .0001, I2 = 82%; and for albiglutide 50 mg: odds ratio 5.57, 95% CI [2.25-13.80], P = .0002, I2 = 84%). Albiglutide had glycemic efficacy comparable to other glucose-lowering drugs. CFB in body weight was similar with albiglutide and placebo. AE profile, including gastrointestinal AE, was identical with albiglutide and placebo, except for higher drug-related AE and injection-site reaction with albiglutide.
CONCLUSION
Albiglutide provides reassuring data on good glycemic efficacy, tolerability, and safety over an extended period of clinical use in patients with T2D. Albiglutide 30 mg has comparable efficacy and safety profiles to albiglutide 50 mg.
Topics: Humans; Blood Glucose; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Glucagon-Like Peptide 1; Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor; Glycated Hemoglobin; Hypoglycemic Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38905435
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000038568 -
Medicine Jun 2024Flibanserin, approved for the treatment of hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) in females, has demonstrated diverse therapeutic and adverse effect (AE) prospects in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Flibanserin, approved for the treatment of hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) in females, has demonstrated diverse therapeutic and adverse effect (AE) prospects in the extant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This meta-analysis aimed to characterize the outcomes of flibanserin use in these patients comprehensively.
METHODS
RCTs involving women with HSDD receiving flibanserin in the intervention arm and placebo in the control arm were sought after throughout the electronic databases. The primary outcomes were the changes from baseline in satisfying sexual events (SSE) per month and sexual desire score per month measured using an electronic diary (eDiary).
RESULTS
From 478 initially screened articles, data from 8 RCTs involving 7906 women with HSDD were analyzed. In premenopausal women, flibanserin 100 mg was superior to placebo in improving the number of SSE per month (mean difference, MD 0.69, 95% CI [0.39, 0.99]), eDiary sexual desire score (MD 1.71, 95% CI [0.43, 2.98]), Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) desire domain (FSFI-d) score (MD 0.30, 95% CI [0.29, 0.31]), FSFI total score (MD 2.51, 95% CI [1.47, 3.55]), Female Sexual Distress Scale-Revised (FSDS-R) Item 13 score (MD -0.30, 95% CI [-0.31, -0.29]), and FSDS-R total score (MD -3.30, 95% CI [-3.37, -3.23]). Compared to placebo, a higher number of premenopausal women using flibanserin 100 mg achieved improvements in the Patient's Global Impression of Improvement score (OR 1.93, 95% CI [1.58, 2.36], P < .00001) and responded positively at Patient Benefit Evaluation (PBE) (odds ratio, OR 1.76, 95% CI [1.34, 2.31], P < .0001). Postmenopausal women receiving flibanserin 100 mg also benefited in terms of the number of SSE per month, FSFI-d and total scores, FSDS-R Item 13 and total scores, and PBE response. Although flibanserin use was associated with higher risks of dizziness, fatigue, nausea, somnolence, and insomnia, these adverse events were mild in nature; the serious AEs and severe AEs were comparable between the flibanserin and placebo groups.
CONCLUSION
While flibanserin has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of HSDD in both pre- and postmenopausal women, its therapeutic advantages may be overshadowed by the higher likelihood of AEs.
Topics: Female; Humans; Benzimidazoles; Libido; Premenopause; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sexual Dysfunctions, Psychological; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38905407
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000038592 -
PloS One 2024This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors in the treatment of patients with RA. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors in the treatment of patients with RA.
METHODS
The databases CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, CBM, and PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs), all from the time of database creation to April 2024. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment (using Review Manager-5.3 software) were independently performed by at least two authors. The network meta-analysis was conducted using R 4.1.3 software. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022370444.
RESULTS
Thirty-three RCTs included 15,961 patients The experimental groups involved six JAK inhibitors (filgotinib, tofacitinib, decernotinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib and peficitinib) and 12 interventions (different doses of the six JAK inhibitors), and the control group involved adalimumab (ADA) and placebo. Compared with placebo, all JAK inhibitors showed a significant increase in efficacy measures (ACR20/50/70). Compared with ADA, only tofacitinib, low-dose decernotinib, and high-dose peficitinib showed a significant increase in ACR20/50/70. Decernotinib ranked first in the SUCRA ranking of ACR20/50/70. In terms of safety indicators, only those differences between low-dose filgotinib and high-dose upadacitinib, low-dose tofacitinib and high-dose upadacitinib were statistically significant. Low-dose filgotinib ranked first in the SUCRA ranking with adverse events as safety indicators. Only the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib ranked higher among different SUCRA rankings.
CONCLUSION
Six JAK inhibitors have better efficacy than placebo. The superior efficacy of decernotinib and safety of low-dose filgotinib can be found in the SUCRA. However, there are no significant differences in safety between the different JAK inhibitors. Head-to-head trials, directly comparing one against each other, are required to provide more certain evidence.
Topics: Humans; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Bayes Theorem; Pyrimidines; Piperidines; Network Meta-Analysis; Azetidines; Purines; Pyrroles; Pyrazoles; Sulfonamides; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Heterocyclic Compounds, 2-Ring; Niacinamide; Benzamides; Heterocyclic Compounds, 3-Ring; Antirheumatic Agents; Triazoles; Adamantane; Pyridines; Valine
PubMed: 38905267
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305621 -
Critical Care Explorations Jul 2024Although clinicians may use methylene blue (MB) in refractory septic shock, the effect of MB on patient-important outcomes remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Although clinicians may use methylene blue (MB) in refractory septic shock, the effect of MB on patient-important outcomes remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the benefits and harms of MB administration in patients with septic shock.
DATA SOURCES
We searched six databases (including PubMed, Embase, and Medline) from inception to January 10, 2024.
STUDY SELECTION
We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of critically ill adults comparing MB with placebo or usual care without MB administration.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two reviewers performed screening, full-text review, and data extraction. We pooled data using a random-effects model, assessed the risk of bias using the modified Cochrane tool, and used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to rate certainty of effect estimates.
DATA SYNTHESIS
We included six RCTs (302 patients). Compared with placebo or no MB administration, MB may reduce short-term mortality (RR [risk ratio] 0.66 [95% CI, 0.47-0.94], low certainty) and hospital length of stay (mean difference [MD] -2.1 d [95% CI, -1.4 to -2.8], low certainty). MB may also reduce duration of vasopressors (MD -31.1 hr [95% CI, -16.5 to -45.6], low certainty), and increase mean arterial pressure at 6 hours (MD 10.2 mm Hg [95% CI, 6.1-14.2], low certainty) compared with no MB administration. The effect of MB on serum methemoglobin concentration was uncertain (MD 0.9% [95% CI, -0.2% to 2.0%], very low certainty). We did not find any differences in adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
Among critically ill adults with septic shock, based on low-certainty evidence, MB may reduce short-term mortality, duration of vasopressors, and hospital length of stay, with no evidence of increased adverse events. Rigorous randomized trials evaluating the efficacy of MB in septic shock are needed.
REGISTRATION
Center for Open Science (https://osf.io/hpy4j).
Topics: Methylene Blue; Humans; Shock, Septic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Length of Stay; Critical Illness
PubMed: 38904978
DOI: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000001110 -
International Ophthalmology Jun 2024This meta-analysis reviews the evidence for the risks and benefits associated with orthokeratology (OK) treatment compared with other methods of myopia control in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This meta-analysis reviews the evidence for the risks and benefits associated with orthokeratology (OK) treatment compared with other methods of myopia control in children and adults.
METHODS
A systematic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Pubmed, Embase and Ovid was conducted from database inception to 22nd August 2021. Studies that reported on risks, visual and ocular biometric effects of OK in patients > 5 years of age with myopia (- 0.75 to - 6.00D) were included. Main outcomes are change in axial length and any adverse event.
RESULTS
Fourty-five papers were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The quality of data was variable and of moderate certainty, and selection bias likely skewed the results towards a relative benefit for OK. The rate of axial elongation in children was lower for OK treatment compared to other treatment modalities at one year (MD - 0.16 mm, 95% CI - 0.25 to - 0.07). Rate of change in axial length in children rebounded after OK discontinuation compared to participants who continued treatment (MD 0.10 mm, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.14). Adults and children wearing OK were up to 3.79 times more likely to experience an adverse event when compared with conventional contact lenses (OR 3.79, 95% CI 1.24 to ll.), though this evidence base is underdeveloped and requires additional well-designed studies for substantial conclusions to be drawn.
CONCLUSIONS
OK arrests myopia progression while in use, however, there remain unanswered questions about the optimal duration of treatment, discontinuation effects and long-term risk for adverse events.
Topics: Humans; Orthokeratologic Procedures; Myopia; Refraction, Ocular; Visual Acuity; Axial Length, Eye; Contact Lenses; Child; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 38904856
DOI: 10.1007/s10792-024-03175-w -
BMC Public Health Jun 2024Acute HIV infection during pregnancy and in the postpartum period increases the risk of vertical transmission. The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Acute HIV infection during pregnancy and in the postpartum period increases the risk of vertical transmission. The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended preexposure prophylaxis for pregnant and postpartum women at risk of acquiring HIV. However, there are significant gaps between the actual practice and the ideal goal of preexposure prophylaxis implementation among pregnant and postpartum women. Therefore, it is important to determine what influences women's implementation of preexposure prophylaxis during pregnancy and in the postpartum period. This review aims to aggregate barriers and facilitators to preexposure prophylaxis implementation among pregnant and postpartum women.
METHODS
A range of electronic databases, including PubMed, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, Embase, and Web of Science, were searched for potentially relevant qualitative studies. The search period extended from the establishment of the databases to March 16, 2023. This review used the ENTREQ (Enhancing transparency in reporting of qualitative research synthesis) statement to guide the design and reporting of qualitative synthesis. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist. The JBI meta-aggregation method was applied for guiding the data extraction, and the JBI ConQual method was applied for guiding the evaluation of the level of evidence for the synthesis.
RESULTS
Of retrieved 2042 studies, 12 met the inclusion criteria. The total population sample included 447 participants, including 231 pregnant and postpartum women, 21 male partners, 75 healthcare providers (HCPs)/healthcare workers (HCWs), 18 policymakers, 37 mothers, and 65 women of childbearing age. A total of 149 findings with credibility ratings of "unequivocal" or "equivocal" were included in this meta-synthesis. Barriers and facilitators to preexposure prophylaxis implementation were coded into seven categories, including three facilitator categories: perceived benefits, maintaining relationships with partners, and external support, and four barriers: medication-related barriers, stigma, barriers at the level of providers and facilities, and biases in risk perception.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and meta-synthesis aggregated the barriers and facilitators of preexposure prophylaxis implementation among pregnant and postpartum women. We aggregated several barriers to maternal preexposure prophylaxis implementation, including medication-related factors, stigma, barriers at the level of providers and facilities, and risk perception biases. Therefore, intervention measures for improving preexposure prophylaxis services can be developed based on these points.
PROSPERO NUMBER
CRD42023412631.
Topics: Humans; Female; Pregnancy; Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis; HIV Infections; Postpartum Period; Qualitative Research; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious; Anti-HIV Agents; Adult; Patient Acceptance of Health Care; Infectious Disease Transmission, Vertical
PubMed: 38902766
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-024-19168-4 -
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Jun 2024Smoking during pregnancy is harmful to maternal and child health. Vaping is used for smoking cessation but evidence on health effects during pregnancy is scarce. We...
INTRODUCTION
Smoking during pregnancy is harmful to maternal and child health. Vaping is used for smoking cessation but evidence on health effects during pregnancy is scarce. We conducted a systematic review of health outcomes of vaping during pregnancy.
METHODS
We searched six databases for maternal/fetal/infant outcomes and vaping, including quantitative, English language, human studies of vaping during pregnancy, to November 10th, 2023. We assessed study quality with the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool. We focused on comparisons of exclusive-vaping with non-use of nicotine and tobacco products and with smoking. Presentation is narrative as the studies were of insufficient quality to conduct meta-analysis.
RESULTS
We included 26 studies, with 765,527 women, with one randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing vaping and nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation, 23 cohort studies and two case-control studies. While the RCT met 4/5 quality criteria, the quality of the cohort studies and case-control studies was poor; none adequately assessed exposure to smoking and vaping. For studies comparing exclusive-vaping with 'non-use', more reported no increased risk for vaping (three studies) than reported increased risk for maternal pregnancy/postpartum outcomes (one study) and for fetal and infant outcomes (20 studies no increased risk, four increased risk), except for birth-weight and neurological outcomes where two studies each observed increased and no increased risk. When the RCT compared non-users with those not smoking but vaping or using NRT, irrespective of randomisation, they reported no evidence of risk for vaping/NRT. For studies comparing exclusive-vaping and exclusive-smoking, most studies provided evidence for a comparable risk for different outcomes. One maternal biomarker study revealed a lower risk for vaping. For small-for-gestational-age/mean-birth-centile equal numbers of studies found lower risk for vaping than for smoking as found similar risk for the two groups (two each).
CONCLUSIONS
While more studies found no evidence of increased risk of exclusive-vaping compared with non-use and evidence of comparable risk for exclusive-vaping and exclusive-smoking, the quality of the evidence limits conclusions. Without adequate assessment of exposure to vaping and smoking, findings cannot be attributed to behaviour as many who vape will have smoked and many who vape may do so at low levels.
STUDY REGISTRATION
https://osf.io/rfx4q/ .
Topics: Humans; Pregnancy; Female; Vaping; Pregnancy Outcome; Smoking Cessation; Pregnancy Complications; Infant, Newborn
PubMed: 38902658
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-024-06633-6