-
Annals of Medicine 2023The emergence of genetically-modified human proteins and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have presented a promising strategy for effectively managing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative efficacy and safety profile of once-weekly Semaglutide versus once-daily Sitagliptin as an add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The emergence of genetically-modified human proteins and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have presented a promising strategy for effectively managing diabetes. Due to the scarcity of clinical trials focusing on the safety and efficacy of semaglutide as an adjunctive treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes who had inadequate glycemic control with metformin, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. This was necessary to fill the gap and provide a comprehensive assessment of semaglutide compared to sitagliptin, a commonly prescribed DPP-4 inhibitor, in this patient population.
METHODS
A comprehensive and systematic search was carried out on reputable databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Elsevier's ScienceDirect to identify relevant studies that compared the efficacy of once-weekly Semaglutide with once-daily Sitagliptin in individuals diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The analysis of the gathered data was performed utilizing the random-effects model, which considers both within-study and between-study variations.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis incorporated three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), encompassing 2401 participants, with a balanced distribution across the treatment groups. The primary focus of the study revolved around evaluating changes in HbA1C, blood pressure, pulse rate, body weight, waist circumference, and BMI. The findings revealed that once-weekly Semaglutide showed substantially improved HbA1C (WMD: -0.98; 95% CI: -1.28, -0.69, p-value: < 0.0001; I2: 100%), systolic (WMD: -3.73; 95% CI: -5.42, -2.04, p-value: <0.0001; I2: 100%) and diastolic blood pressures (WMD: -0.66; 95% CI: -1.02, -0.29, p-value: 0.0005; I2: 100%), and body weight (WMD: -3.17; 95% CI: -3.84, -2.49, p-value: <0.00001; I2: 100%) compared to once-daily Sitagliptin. However, there was an observed increase in pulse rate (WMD: 3.33; 95% CI: 1.61, 5.06, p-value: <0.00001; I2: 100%) associated with Semaglutide treatment. Regarding secondary outcomes, there was an elevated risk of total adverse events and premature treatment discontinuation with Semaglutide. The risk of serious, severe, moderate, and mild adverse events did not significantly differ between the two treatments.
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, the administration of once-weekly Semaglutide exhibited a substantial reduction in HbA1c, average systolic blood pressure (SBP), mean diastolic blood pressure (DBP), body weight, waist circumference, body mass index (BMI), and a rise in pulse rate, as opposed to the once-daily administration of Sitagliptin.
Topics: Humans; Metformin; Sitagliptin Phosphate; Glycated Hemoglobin; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Hypoglycemic Agents; Body Weight
PubMed: 37498865
DOI: 10.1080/07853890.2023.2239830 -
Journal of Global Health Jul 2023The efficacy of nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir (NMV-r) for vaccinated COVID-19 patients at high risk of progression is not adequately recognised. To address this gap, we... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The efficacy of nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir (NMV-r) for vaccinated COVID-19 patients at high risk of progression is not adequately recognised. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and medRxiv for articles published up to 8 January 2023 on NMV-r in outpatients. At least two researchers screened articles, extracted data, and assessed the quality of selected studies. We evaluated the results via risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and tested for heterogeneity using I statistics.
RESULTS
We included seven observational cohort studies comprising 224 238 vaccinated patients. According to our meta-analysis, NMV-r reduced 47% incidence of all-cause death or hospitalisation within 30 days for vaccinated patients (RR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.40-0.70; I = 81%). After excluding the most influential result by sensitivity analysis, NMV-r still reduced risk of all-cause death or hospitalisation by 38% (RR = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.56-0.69; I = 0%). In our secondary outcome, NMV-r also showed its benefits in reducing all-cause death in vaccinated patients (RR = 0.40; 95% CI = 0.19-0.85; I = 23%).
CONCLUSIONS
We found positive evidence for the use of NMV-r for vaccinated patients at high-risk of progression with mild to moderate COVID-19. However, large-scale RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42023391349.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Ritonavir; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Hospitalization
PubMed: 37469290
DOI: 10.7189/jogh.13.06032 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2023This network meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and safety of new anti-diabetic medications for the treatment of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
This network meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and safety of new anti-diabetic medications for the treatment of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PubMed and Scopus were searched from inception to 27 March 2022 to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in NAFLD patients. Outcomes included reductions in intrahepatic steatosis (IHS) and liver enzyme levels. The efficacy and safety of DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists, SGLT-2 inhibitors, and other therapies were indirectly compared using a NMA approach. Unstandardized mean difference (USMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.
RESULTS
2,252 patients from 31 RCTs were included. "Add-on" GLP-1 agonists with standard of care (SoC) treatment showed significantly reduced IHS compared to SoC alone [USMD (95%CI) -3.93% (-6.54%, -1.33%)]. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) identified GLP-1 receptor agonists with the highest probability to reduce IHS (SUCRA 88.5%), followed by DPP-4 inhibitors (SUCRA 69.6%) and pioglitazone (SUCRA 62.2%). "Add-on" GLP-1 receptor agonists were also the most effective treatment for reducing liver enzyme levels; AST [USMD of -5.04 (-8.46, -1.62)], ALT [USMD of -9.84 (-16.84, -2.85)] and GGT [USMD of -15.53 (-22.09, -8.97)] compared to SoC alone. However, GLP-1 agonists were most likely to be associated with an adverse event compared to other interventions.
CONCLUSION
GLP-1 agonists may represent the most promising anti-diabetic treatment to reduce hepatic steatosis and liver enzyme activity in T2DM and NAFLD patients. Nevertheless, longer-term studies are required to determine whether this delays progression of liver cirrhosis in patients with NAFLD and T2DM.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42021259336.1.
Topics: Humans; Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease; Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors; Network Meta-Analysis; Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Hypoglycemic Agents; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Glucagon-Like Peptide 1
PubMed: 37441498
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1182037 -
Clinical Cardiology Aug 2023This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of single-pill combination (SPC) antihypertensive drugs in patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension. Through Searching... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of single-pill combination (SPC) antihypertensive drugs in patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension. Through Searching Pubmed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science collected only randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of single-pill combination antihypertensive drugs in people with uncontrolled essential hypertension. The search period is from the establishment of the database to July 2022. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment, and statistical analyses were performed using Review Manage 5.3 and Stata 15.1 software. This review ultimately included 32 references involving 16 273 patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension. The results of the network meta-analysis showed that a total of 11 single-pill combination antihypertensive drugs were included, namely: Amlodipine/valsartan, Telmisartan/amlodipine, Losartan/HCTZ, Candesartan/HCTZ, Amlodipine/benazepril, Telmisartan/HCTZ, Valsartan/HCTZ, Irbesartan/amlodipine, Amlodipine/losartan, Irbesartan/HCTZ, and Perindopril/amlodipine. According to SUCRA, Irbesartan/amlodipine may rank first in reducing systolic blood pressure (SUCRA: 92.2%); Amlodipine/losartan may rank first in reducing diastolic blood pressure (SUCRA: 95.1%); Telmisartan/amlodipine may rank first in blood pressure control rates (SUCRA: 83.5%); Amlodipine/losartan probably ranks first in diastolic response rate (SUCRA: 84.5%). Based on Ranking Plot of the Network, we can conclude that single-pill combination antihypertensive drugs are superior to monotherapy, and ARB/CCB combination has better advantages than other SPC in terms of systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, blood pressure control rate, and diastolic response rate. However, due to the small number of some drug studies, the lack of relevant studies has led to not being included in this study, which may impact the results, and readers should interpret the results with caution.
Topics: Humans; Antihypertensive Agents; Losartan; Hypertension; Telmisartan; Irbesartan; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Hydrochlorothiazide; Valine; Drug Therapy, Combination; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Amlodipine; Valsartan; Tetrazoles; Blood Pressure; Essential Hypertension
PubMed: 37432701
DOI: 10.1002/clc.24082 -
Journal of Clinical Hypertension... Aug 2023Studies have shown that angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) are superior in primary and secondary prevention for cardiac mortality and morbidity to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Studies have shown that angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) are superior in primary and secondary prevention for cardiac mortality and morbidity to angiotensin receptor blocker (ARBs). One of the common side effects from ACEI is dry cough. The aims of this systematic review, and network meta-analysis are to rank the risk of cough induced by different ACEIs and between ACEI and placebo, ARB or calcium channel blockers (CCB). We performed a systematic review, and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to rank the risk of cough induced by each ACEI and between ACEI and placebo, ARB or CCB. A total of 135 RCTs with 45,420 patients treated with eleven ACEIs were included in the analyses. The pooled estimated relative risk (RR) between ACEI and placebo was 2.21 (95% CI: 2.05-2.39). ACEI had more incidences of cough than ARB (RR 3.2; 95% CI: 2.91, 3.51), and pooled estimated of RR between ACEI and CCB was 5.30 (95% CI: 4.32-6.50) Moexipril ranked as number one for inducing cough (SUCRA 80.4%) and spirapril ranked the least (SUCRA 12.3%). The order for the rest of the ACEIs are as follows: ramipril (SUCRA 76.4%), fosinopril (SUCRA 72.5%), lisinopril (SUCRA 64.7%), benazepril (SUCRA 58.6%), quinapril (SUCRA 56.5%), perindopril (SUCRA 54.1%), enalapril (SUCRA 49.7%), trandolapril (SUCRA 44.6%) and, captopril (SUCRA 13.7%). All ACEI has the similar risk of developing a cough. ACEI should be avoided in patients who have risk of developing cough, and an ARB or CCB is an alternative based on the patient's comorbidity.
Topics: Humans; Antihypertensive Agents; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Cough; Hypertension; Calcium Channel Blockers
PubMed: 37417783
DOI: 10.1111/jch.14695 -
The safety and efficacy of oral antiviral drug VV116 for treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review.Medicine Jul 2023Recent trials have highlighted the potential of oral antiviral VV116 in the treatment of patients with mild COVID-19. However, no comprehensive studies have assessed the...
BACKGROUND
Recent trials have highlighted the potential of oral antiviral VV116 in the treatment of patients with mild COVID-19. However, no comprehensive studies have assessed the safety and efficacy of VV116. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to assess the safety and efficacy of VV116.
METHODS
A comprehensive search was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar websites, with a cutoff date of March 23, to identify pertinent studies.
RESULTS
The results from the 3 included studies indicated that no serious adverse events were reported in the VV116 experimental groups, which exhibited a 2.57-day faster time to viral shedding than the control group and demonstrated non-inferiority to the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir control group in alleviating major symptoms.
DISCUSSION
Collectively, available studies suggest a reliable safety and efficacy profile for VV116. However, the limited number of trials was insufficient for meta-analysis, and the included population consisted of younger individuals with mild and moderate symptoms, not encompassing the elderly who are severely affected by COVID-19. We hope that more studies will be conducted in the future to ensure that VV116 has a more reliable safety and efficacy profile in the clinical setting, especially in severe or critical patients.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Antiviral Agents; COVID-19; Ritonavir
PubMed: 37417593
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000034105 -
Heart Failure Reviews Nov 2023Anthracyclines and trastuzumab are widely used to treat breast cancer but increase the risk of cardiomyopathy and heart failure. With the use of trastuzumab and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Anthracyclines and trastuzumab are widely used to treat breast cancer but increase the risk of cardiomyopathy and heart failure. With the use of trastuzumab and anthracycline-containing medications, this study intends to evaluate the effectiveness and security of current treatments against cardiotoxicity. We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which used at least one angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), or beta-blocker (BB) to prevent cardiotoxicity of antineoplastic agents for breast cancer, in 4 databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science) from inception to 11 May 2022, without language restrictions. The outcome of interest was left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and adverse events. Stata 15 and R software 4.2.1 were used to perform all statistical analyses. The Cochrane version 2 of the risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias, and the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) assessment was used to appraise the quality of the evidence. Fifteen randomized clinical studies with a total of 1977 patients were included in the analysis. The included studies demonstrated statistically significant LVEF in the ACEI/ARB and BB treatment groups (χ = 184.75, I = 88.6%, p = 0.000; SMD 0.556, 95% CI 0.299 to 0.813). In an exploratory subgroup analysis, the benefit of experimental agents on LVEF, whether anthracyclines or trastuzumab, was prominent in patients treated with ACEIs, ARBs, and BBs. Compared to placebo, ACEI/ARB and BB treatments in breast cancer patients protect against cardiotoxicity after trastuzumab and anthracycline-containing medication treatment, indicating a benefit for both.
Topics: Humans; Female; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Cardiotoxicity; Antineoplastic Agents; Breast Neoplasms; Trastuzumab; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Antibiotics, Antineoplastic; Anthracyclines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37414918
DOI: 10.1007/s10741-023-10328-z -
Hellenic Journal of Cardiology : HJC =... 2023Duchenne muscular dystrophy is a fatal X-linked recessive disease affecting approximately 1 in 3500 births. It is characterized by a genetic lack of dystrophin, which is... (Review)
Review
Duchenne muscular dystrophy is a fatal X-linked recessive disease affecting approximately 1 in 3500 births. It is characterized by a genetic lack of dystrophin, which is an essential protein for maintaining muscle integrity. The lack of dystrophin plays a pathophysiological role in the development of dilated cardiomyopathy in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Currently, no consensus exists on specific pharmacological therapy guidelines for these patients; however, it centers around the guidelines for heart failure management. This systematic review investigated 12 randomized control trials dating back to 2005 in the pharmacotherapy of patients with dilated cardiomyopathy Duchenne muscular dystrophy. This review specifically included angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, aldosterone receptor blockers, angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. Despite their limitations, these studies have shown promising effects in improving the overall heart function and prognosis in patients with this condition. However, to attain higher statistical significance, future studies should investigate larger populations and for longer periods.
Topics: Humans; Cardiomyopathy, Dilated; Muscular Dystrophy, Duchenne; Dystrophin; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Adrenergic beta-Antagonists
PubMed: 37406964
DOI: 10.1016/j.hjc.2023.06.007 -
Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics Nov 2023The risk-to-benefit ratio of cardioprotective medications in frail older adults is uncertain. The objective was to systematically review prescribing of... (Review)
Review
AIMS
The risk-to-benefit ratio of cardioprotective medications in frail older adults is uncertain. The objective was to systematically review prescribing of guideline-recommended cardioprotective medications following myocardial infarction (MI) in people who are frail.
DATA SOURCES
Ovid Medline, PubMed and Cochrane were searched from inception to October 2022 for studies that reported prescribing of one or more cardioprotective medication classes post-MI or acute coronary syndromes in people with frailty.
STUDY SELECTION
We included observational studies that reported prescribing of cardioprotective medications post-MI stratified by frailty status.
RESULTS
Overall, 16 cohort studies published from 2013 to 2022 that used seven different frailty scales were included. Prescribing of all cardioprotective medication classes following MI was lower in frail compared to non-frail people, with absolute rates of prescribing varying substantially across studies. Median prescribing in frail and non-frail people, respectively, was 88.9% (IQR 81.5-96.2) and 93.1% (IQR 92.0-98.9) for aspirin; 68.1% (IQR 61.9-91.2) and 86.7% (IQR 79.5-92.8) for P2Y12-inhibitors; 83.1% (IQR 76.9-91.3) and 94.0% (IQR 87.1-95.9) for lipid-lowering therapy; 67.9% (IQR 60.6-74.0) and 74.7% (IQR 71.3-84.5) for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blockers; and 74.1% (IQR 69.2-79) and 77.6% (IQR 71.8-85.9) for beta-blockers.
CONCLUSION
People who were frail were less likely to be prescribed guideline recommended medication classes post-MI than those who were non-frail. Further research is needed into treatment benefits and risks in frail people to avoid unnecessarily withholding treatment in this high-risk population, while also minimising potential for medication related harm.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Frailty; Myocardial Infarction; Acute Coronary Syndrome; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Risk Factors
PubMed: 37356114
DOI: 10.1016/j.archger.2023.105106 -
PLoS Medicine Jun 2023Bloodstream infections (BSIs) produced by antibiotic-resistant bacteria (ARB) cause a substantial disease burden worldwide. However, most estimates come from high-income... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Bloodstream infections (BSIs) produced by antibiotic-resistant bacteria (ARB) cause a substantial disease burden worldwide. However, most estimates come from high-income settings and thus are not globally representative. This study quantifies the excess mortality, length of hospital stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and economic costs associated with ARB BSIs, compared to antibiotic-sensitive bacteria (ASB), among adult inpatients in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
METHODS AND FINDINGS
We conducted a systematic review by searching 4 medical databases (PubMed, SCIELO, Scopus, and WHO's Global Index Medicus; initial search n = 13,012 from their inception to August 1, 2022). We only included quantitative studies. Our final sample consisted of n = 109 articles, excluding studies from high-income countries, without our outcomes of interest, or without a clear source of bloodstream infection. Crude mortality, ICU admission, and LOS were meta-analysed using the inverse variance heterogeneity model for the general and subgroup analyses including bacterial Gram type, family, and resistance type. For economic costs, direct medical costs per bed-day were sourced from WHO-CHOICE. Mortality costs were estimated based on productivity loss from years of potential life lost due to premature mortality. All costs were in 2020 USD. We assessed studies' quality and risk of publication bias using the MASTER framework. Multivariable meta-regressions were employed for the mortality and ICU admission outcomes only. Most included studies showed a significant increase in crude mortality (odds ratio (OR) 1.58, 95% CI [1.35 to 1.80], p < 0.001), total LOS (standardised mean difference "SMD" 0.49, 95% CI [0.20 to 0.78], p < 0.001), and ICU admission (OR 1.96, 95% CI [1.56 to 2.47], p < 0.001) for ARB versus ASB BSIs. Studies analysing Enterobacteriaceae, Acinetobacter baumanii, and Staphylococcus aureus in upper-middle-income countries from the African and Western Pacific regions showed the highest excess mortality, LOS, and ICU admission for ARB versus ASB BSIs per patient. Multivariable meta-regressions indicated that patients with resistant Acinetobacter baumanii BSIs had higher mortality odds when comparing ARB versus ASB BSI patients (OR 1.67, 95% CI [1.18 to 2.36], p 0.004). Excess direct medical costs were estimated at $12,442 (95% CI [$6,693 to $18,191]) for ARB versus ASB BSI per patient, with an average cost of $41,103 (95% CI [$30,931 to $51,274]) due to premature mortality. Limitations included the poor quality of some of the reviewed studies regarding the high risk of selective sampling or failure to adequately account for relevant confounders.
CONCLUSIONS
We provide an overview of the impact ARB BSIs in limited resource settings derived from the existing literature. Drug resistance was associated with a substantial disease and economic burden in LMICs. Although, our results show wide heterogeneity between WHO regions, income groups, and pathogen-drug combinations. Overall, there is a paucity of BSI data from LMICs, which hinders implementation of country-specific policies and tracking of health progress.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Developing Countries; Inpatients; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Sepsis; Bacteria; Anti-Bacterial Agents
PubMed: 37347726
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004199