-
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 -
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 -
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 -
Clinical Cardiology May 2024The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is associated with complex hemostatic changes. Systemic anticoagulation is initiated to prevent clotting in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is associated with complex hemostatic changes. Systemic anticoagulation is initiated to prevent clotting in the ECMO system, but this comes with an increased risk of bleeding. Evidence on the use of anti-Xa-guided monitoring to prevent bleeding during ECMO support is limited. Therefore, we aimed to analyze the association between anti-factor Xa-guided anticoagulation and hemorrhage during ECMO.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed (up to August 2023).
PROSPERO
CRD42023448888.
RESULTS
Twenty-six studies comprising 2293 patients were included in the analysis, with six works being part of the meta-analysis. The mean anti-Xa values did not show a significant difference between patients with and without hemorrhage (standardized mean difference -0.05; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.19; 0.28, p = .69). We found a positive correlation between anti-Xa levels and unfractionated heparin dose (UFH; pooled estimate of correlation coefficients 0.44; 95% CI: 0.33; 0.55, p < .001). The most frequent complications were any type of hemorrhage (pooled 36%) and thrombosis (33%). Nearly half of the critically ill patients did not survive to hospital discharge (47%).
CONCLUSIONS
The most appropriate tool for anticoagulation monitoring in ECMO patients is uncertain. Our analysis did not reveal a significant difference in anti-Xa levels in patients with and without hemorrhagic events. However, we found a moderate correlation between anti-Xa and the UFH dose, supporting its utilization in monitoring UFH anticoagulation. Given the limitations of time-guided monitoring methods, the role of anti-Xa is promising and further research is warranted.
Topics: Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation; Humans; Hemorrhage; Factor Xa Inhibitors; Anticoagulants; Blood Coagulation; Factor Xa; Risk Factors
PubMed: 38693831
DOI: 10.1002/clc.24273 -
American Journal of TherapeuticsNirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) is an oral antiviral drug used to treat mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients aged 12 years or older at high...
BACKGROUND
Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) is an oral antiviral drug used to treat mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients aged 12 years or older at high risk of progression to severe disease (eg, hospitalization and death). Despite being the preferred option for outpatient treatment in the majority of countries worldwide, NMV/r is currently underutilized in real-world clinical practice.
AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY
As numerous real-world studies have described patient outcomes following treatment with NMV/r, this systematic literature review provides a comprehensive summary of evidence on NMV/r effectiveness against hospitalization and mortality further organized by clinically meaningful categories, such as acute versus longer-term follow-up, age, underlying health conditions, and vaccination status, to help inform health care decision making.
DATA SOURCES
We searched Embase and PubMed (December 22, 2021-March 31, 2023) and congress abstracts (December 1, 2021-December 31, 2022) for reports describing NMV/r effectiveness.
THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES
In total, 18 real-world studies met final selection criteria. The evidence showed that NMV/r significantly reduced postinfection risk of all-cause and COVID-19-related hospitalization and mortality in both acute (≤30 days) (21%-92%) and longer-term (>30 days) (1%-61%) follow-up. The reduction in postinfection risk was higher when treatment was received within 5 days of symptom onset. Real-world effectiveness of NMV/r treatment was observed regardless of age, underlying high-risk conditions, and vaccination status.
CONCLUSION
The systematic literature review findings demonstrated the effectiveness of NMV/r against hospitalization and mortality during the Omicron period among individuals at high risk of progression to severe COVID-19 disease.
Topics: Humans; Antiviral Agents; COVID-19; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Drug Combinations; Hospitalization; Ritonavir; SARS-CoV-2; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38691664
DOI: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000001744 -
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 -
Annals of Internal Medicine May 2024In the United States, costs of antidiabetes medications exceed $327 billion. (Review)
Review
Cost-Effectiveness of Newer Pharmacologic Treatments in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies for the American College of Physicians.
BACKGROUND
In the United States, costs of antidiabetes medications exceed $327 billion.
PURPOSE
To systematically review cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of newer antidiabetes medications for type 2 diabetes.
DATA SOURCES
Bibliographic databases from 1 January 2010 through 13 July 2023, limited to English.
STUDY SELECTION
Nonindustry-funded CEAs, done from a U.S. perspective that estimated cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for newer antidiabetic medications. Two reviewers screened the literature; disagreements were resolved with a third reviewer.
DATA EXTRACTION
Cost-effectiveness analyses were reviewed for treatment comparisons, model inputs, and outcomes. Risk of bias (RoB) of the CEAs was assessed using Drummond criteria and certainty of evidence (CoE) was assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluations). Certainty of evidence was determined using cost per QALY thresholds predetermined by the American College of Physicians Clinical Guidelines Committee; low (>$150 000), intermediate ($50 to $150 000), or high (<$50 000) value per QALY compared with the alternative.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Nine CEAs were eligible (2 low, 1 high, and 6 some concerns RoB), evaluating glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists (GLP1a), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide agonist (GIP/GLP1a), and insulin. Comparators were metformin, sulfonylureas, neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, and others. Compared with metformin, GLP1a and SGLT2i are low value as first-line therapy (high CoE) but may be of intermediate value when added to metformin or background therapy compared with adding nothing (low CoE). Insulin analogues may be similarly effective but more expensive than NPH insulin (low CoE). The GIP/GLP1a value is uncertain (insufficient CoE).
LIMITATIONS
Cost-effectiveness analyses varied in methodological approach, assumptions, and drug comparisons. Risk of bias and GRADE method for CEAs are not well established.
CONCLUSION
Glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists and SGLT2i are of low value as first-line therapy but may be of intermediate value when added to metformin or other background therapy compared with adding nothing. Other drugs and comparisons are of low or uncertain value. Results are sensitive to drug effectiveness and cost assumptions.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022382315).
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Humans; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Hypoglycemic Agents; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; United States; Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors; Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors
PubMed: 38639547
DOI: 10.7326/M23-1492 -
Journal of the American Heart... Apr 2024Concomitant atrial fibrillation and end-stage renal disease is common and associated with an unfavorable prognosis. Although oral anticoagulants have been well... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Concomitant atrial fibrillation and end-stage renal disease is common and associated with an unfavorable prognosis. Although oral anticoagulants have been well established to prevent thromboembolism, the applicability in patients under long-term dialysis remains debatable. The study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation in the dialysis-dependent population.
METHODS AND RESULTS
An updated network meta-analysis based on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was performed. Studies published up to December 2022 were included. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban 2.5/5 mg twice daily), vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), and no anticoagulation were compared on safety and efficacy outcomes. The outcomes of interest were major bleeding, thromboembolism, and all-cause death. A total of 42 studies, including 3 randomized controlled trials, with 185 864 subjects were pooled. VKAs were associated with a significantly higher risk of major bleeding than either no anticoagulation (hazard ratio [HR], 1.47; 95% CI, 1.34-1.61) or DOACs (DOACs versus VKAs; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.64-0.84]). For the prevention of thromboembolism, the efficacies of VKAs, DOACs, and no anticoagulation were equivalent. Nevertheless, dabigatran and rivaroxaban were associated with fewer embolic events. There were no differences in all-cause death with the administration of VKAs, DOACs, or no anticoagulation.
CONCLUSIONS
For dialysis-dependent populations, dabigatran and rivaroxaban were associated with better efficacy, while dabigatran and apixaban demonstrated better safety. No anticoagulation was a noninferior alterative, and VKAs were associated with the worst outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Atrial Fibrillation; Rivaroxaban; Dabigatran; Stroke; Network Meta-Analysis; Anticoagulants; Hemorrhage; Fibrinolytic Agents; Administration, Oral; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Thromboembolism; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38606775
DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.123.034176