scholarly journals Efficacy and harms of remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alejandro Piscoya ◽  
Luis Fernando Ng-Sueng ◽  
Angela Parra del Riego ◽  
Renato Cerna-Viacava ◽  
Vinay Pasupuleti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Clinical Improvement ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Meta Analyses

AbstractBackgroundWe evaluated the efficacy and safety of remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19.MethodsSystematic review in five engines, pre-print webpages and RCT registries until May 22, 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies evaluating remdesivir on confirmed, COVID-19 adults with pneumonia and/or respiratory insufficiency. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, clinical improvement or recovery, need for invasive ventilation, and serious adverse events (SAE). Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, progression of pneumonia, and adverse events (AE). Inverse variance random effects meta-analyses were performed.ResultsTwo placebo-controlled RCTs (n=1300) and two case series (n=88) were included. All studies used remdesivir 200mg IV the first day and 100mg IV for 9 more days, and followed up until 28 days. Wang et al. RCT was stopped early due to AEs; ACTT-1 was preliminary reported at 15-day follow up. Time to clinical improvement was not decreased in Wang et al. RCT, but median time to recovery was decreased by 4 days in ACTT-1. Remdesivir did not decrease all-cause mortality (RR 0.71, 95%CI 0.39 to 1.28) and need for invasive ventilation at 14 days (RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.23 to 1.42), but had fewer SAEs (RR 0.77, 95%CI 0.63 to 0.94). AEs were similar between remdesivir and placebo arms. Risk of bias ranged from some concerns to high risk in RCTs.InterpretationThere is paucity of adequately powered and fully reported RCTs evaluating effects of remdesivir in adult, hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Remdesivir should not be recommended for the treatment of severe COVID-19.

scholarly journals Efficacy and harms of remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
pp. e0243705
Author(s):  
Alejandro Piscoya ◽  
Luis F. Ng-Sueng ◽  
Angela Parra del Riego ◽  
Renato Cerna-Viacava ◽  
Vinay Pasupuleti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Improvement ◽  
Ordinal Data ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Days Of Therapy ◽  
All Cause Mortality

Background Efficacy and safety of treatments for hospitalized COVID-19 are uncertain. We systematically reviewed efficacy and safety of remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19. Methods Studies evaluating remdesivir in adults with hospitalized COVID-19 were searched in several engines until August 21, 2020. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, clinical improvement or recovery, need for invasive ventilation, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Inverse variance random effects meta-analyses were performed. Results We included four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 2296) [two vs. placebo (n = 1299) and two comparing 5-day vs. 10-day regimens (n = 997)], and two case series (n = 88). Studies used intravenous remdesivir 200mg the first day and 100mg for four or nine more days. One RCT (n = 236) was stopped early due to AEs; the other three RCTs reported outcomes between 11 and 15 days. Time to recovery was decreased by 4 days with remdesivir vs. placebo in one RCT (n = 1063), and by 0.8 days with 5-days vs. 10-days of therapy in another RCT (n = 397). Clinical improvement was better for 5-days regimen vs. standard of care in one RCT (n = 600). Remdesivir did not decrease all-cause mortality (RR 0.71, 95%CI 0.39 to 1.28, I2 = 43%) and need for invasive ventilation (RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.23 to 1.42, I2 = 60%) vs. placebo at 14 days but had fewer SAEs; 5-day decreased need for invasive ventilation and SAEs vs. 10-day in one RCT (n = 397). No differences in all-cause mortality or SAEs were seen among 5-day, 10-day and standard of care. There were some concerns of bias to high risk of bias in RCTs. Heterogeneity between studies could be due to different severities of disease, days of therapy before outcome determination, and how ordinal data was analyzed. Conclusions There is paucity of adequately powered and fully reported RCTs evaluating effects of remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Until stronger evidence emerges, we cannot conclude that remdesivir is efficacious for treating COVID-19.

scholarly journals Efficacy and harms of convalescent plasma for treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alejandro Piscoya ◽  
Luis Ng-Sueng ◽  
Angela Parra del Riego ◽  
Renato Cerna-Viacava ◽  
Vinay Pasupuleti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Clinical Improvement ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Grade Methodology

IntroductionWe systematically reviewed benefits and harms of convalescent plasma (CP) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.Material and methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing CP effects on hospitalized, adult COVID-19 patients were searched until November 24, 2020. We assessed risk of bias (RoB) using Cochrane RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tools. Inverse variance random effect meta-analyses were performed. Quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE methodology. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, clinical improvement, and adverse events.ResultsFive RCTs (n = 1067) and 6 cohorts (n = 881) were included. Three and 1 RCTs had some concerns and high RoB, respectively; and there was serious RoB in all cohorts. Convalescent plasma did not reduce all-cause mortality in RCTs of severe (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.33–1.10) or moderate (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.09–3.86) COVID-19 vs. standard of care (SOC); CP reduced all-cause mortality vs. SOC in cohorts (RR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.49–0.91). Convalescent plasma did not reduce invasive ventilation vs. SOC in moderate disease (RR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.47–1.55). In comparison to placebo + SOC, CP did not affect all-cause mortality (RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.48–1.16) or clinical improvement (HR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.82–1.40) in severe patients. Adverse and serious adverse events were scarce, similar between CP and controls. Quality of evidence was low or very low for most outcomes.ConclusionsIn comparison to SOC or placebo + SOC, CP did not reduce all-cause mortality in RCTs of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Convalescent plasma did not have an effect on other clinical or safety outcomes. Until now there is no good quality evidence to recommend CP for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

scholarly journals Repurposing of drugs for Covid-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pinky Kotecha ◽  
Alexander Light ◽  
Enrico Checcucci ◽  
Daniele Amparore ◽  
Cristian Fiori ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Clinical Improvement ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Significant Difference

AbstractObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the data currently available regarding the repurposing of different drugs for Covid-19 treatment. Participants with suspected or diagnosed Covid-19 will be included. The interventions being considered are drugs being repurposed, and comparators will include standard of care treatment or placebo.MethodsWe searched Ovid-MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, clinical trial registration site in the UK(NIHR), Europe (clinicaltrialsregister.eu), US (ClinicalTrials.gov) and internationally (isrctn.com), and reviewed the reference lists of articles for eligible articles published up to April 22, 2020. All studies in English that evaluated the efficacy of the listed drugs were included. Cochrane RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tool were used to assess study quality. This systematic review adheres to the PRISMA guidelines. The protocol is available at PROSPERO (CRD42020180915).ResultsFrom 708 identified studies or clinical trials, 16 studies and 16 case reports met our eligibility criteria. Of these, 6 were randomized controlled trials (763 patients), 7 cohort studies (321 patients) and 3 case series (191 patients). Chloroquine (CQ) had a 100% discharge rate compared to 50% with lopinavir-ritonavir at day 14, however a trial has recommended against a high dosage due to cardiotoxic events. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has shown no significant improvement in negative seroconversion rate which is also seen in our meta-analysis (p=0.68). Adverse events with HCQ have a significant difference compared to the control group (p=0.001). Lopinavir-ritonavir has shown no improvement in time to clinical improvement which is seen in our meta-analyses (p=0.1). Remdesivir has shown no significant improvement in time to clinical improvement but this trial had insufficient power.DiscussionDue to the paucity in evidence, it is difficult to establish the efficacy of these drugs in the treatment of Covid-19 as currently there is no significant clinical effectiveness of the repurposed drugs. Further large clinical trials are required to achieve more reliable findings. A risk-benefit analysis is required on an individual basis to weigh out the potential improvement in clinical outcome and viral load reduction compared to the risks of the adverse events. (1-16)

scholarly journals Comparative Effectiveness of Pharmacological Interventions for Covid-19: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Franco De Crescenzo ◽  
Laura Amato ◽  
Fabio Cruciani ◽  
Luke P Moynihan ◽  
Gian Loreto D’Alò ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Pharmacological Intervention ◽  
Pharmacological Interventions ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background: Several pharmacological interventions are now under investigation for the treatment of Covid-19, and the evidence is evolving rapidly. Our aim is to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of these drugs.Methods and Findings: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We included 96 RCTs, comprising of 34,501 patients. The network meta-analysis showed in terms of all-cause mortality, when compared to SC or placebo, only corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate (RR 0.90, 95%CI 0.83, 0.97; moderate certainty of evidence). Corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate also when compared to hydroxychloroquine (RR 0.83, 95%CI 0.74, 0.94; moderate certainty of evidence). Remdesivir proved to be better in terms of SAEs when compared to SC or placebo (RR 0.75, 95%CI 0.63, 0.89; high certainty of evidence) and plasma (RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.34, 0.94; high certainty of evidence). The combination of lopinavir and ritonavir proved to reduce SAEs when compared to plasma (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.25, 0.95; high certainty of evidence). Most of the RCTs were at unclear risk of bias (42 of 96), one third were at high risk of bias (34 of 96) and 20 were at low risk of bias. Certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low.Conclusion: At present, corticosteroids reduced all-cause mortality in patients with Covid-19, with a moderate certainty of evidence. Remdesivir appeared to be a safer option than SC or placebo, while plasma was associated with safety concerns. These preliminary evidence-based observations should guide clinical practice until more data are made public.

Adverse Events after Rigid and Flexible Endoscopic Repair of Zenker’s Diverticula: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 161 (3) ◽  
pp. 388-400 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brianna Crawley ◽  
Salem Dehom ◽  
Shanalee Tamares ◽  
Abdullah Marghalani ◽  
Julina Ongkasuwan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Retrospective Case ◽  
Hand Search ◽  
Endoscopic Techniques ◽  
Vocal Fold Palsy ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objective To determine adverse events after endoscopic flexible vs endoscopic rigid cricopharyngeal myotomy for treatment of Zenker’s diverticulum (ZD). Data Sources Systematic review of MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for all years according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Additional studies were identified from review citations and a by hand search of manuscripts referencing ZD. Review Methods A structured literature search was conducted to identify studies for this systematic review. Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria were applied to assess study quality. For inclusion, each study had to provide data for at least 10 adult patients who had undergone endoscopic ZD repair reporting clear association with the postprocedure course in each case. Data extracted included all reported adverse events, recurrences, follow-up, and operative times. Results In total, 115 studies were included. All but 8 were retrospective case series. Sixty-one reported series of patients after rigid endoscopic stapler repair, 31 after rigid laser repair, and 13 with other rigid endoscopic instruments. Twenty-nine flexible endoscopic studies were included. Mortality, infection, and perforation were not significantly more likely in either the rigid or the flexible group, but bleeding and recurrence were more likely after flexible endoscopic techniques (20% vs <10% and 4% vs 0%, respectively). Dental injury and vocal fold palsy were reported rarely in the rigid endoscopic groups. Conclusions Adverse events are rare after endoscopic Zenker’s repair. The flexible approach minimizes exposure limitations and can be completed in some patients without general anesthesia. Transoral rigid approaches result in fewer revision surgeries compared with flexible diverticulotomy.

scholarly journals Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Safety of Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine From Randomized Controlled Trials on Malarial and Non-malarial Conditions

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mayra Souza Botelho ◽  
Fernanda Bolfi ◽  
Renata Giacomini Occhiuto Ferreira Leite ◽  
Mauro Salles Ferreira Leite ◽  
Luisa Rocco Banzato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Evaluation System ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Cardiac Complications ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background: Despite the expectations regarding the effectiveness of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) management, concerns about their adverse events have remained. Objectives: The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the safety of CQ and HCQ from malarial and non-malarial randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Methods: The primary outcomes were the frequencies of serious adverse events (SAEs), retinopathy, and cardiac complications. Search strategies were applied to MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CENTRAL, Scopus, and Trip databases. We used random-effects model to pool results across studies and Peto one-step odds ratio (OR) for event rates below 1 %. Both-armed zero-event studies were excluded from the meta-analyses. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to evaluate the certainty of evidence.Results: Ninety-two RCTs were included. We found no significant difference between CQ/HCQ and control (placebo or non-CQ/HCQ) in the frequency of SAEs (OR: 0.98, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.71–1.36, 25 trials, 11,605 participants, moderate certainty of evidence). No clear relationship was observed between CQ/HCQ and retinopathy (OR: 1,63, 95 % CI: -0.4–6.57, 5 trials, 344 participants, very low certainty of evidence). There was a low certainty of evidence of the effect of CQ/HCQ versus control on cardiac complications (Relative risk: 1.48, 95 % CI: 1.1–1.98, 8 trials, 5,970 participants).Conclusions: CQ and HCQ might be safe, with low frequency of SAEs on malarial and non-malarial conditions. No clear effect of their use on the incidence of retinopathy and cardiac complications was observed.The protocol for this systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020177818)

The Effectiveness and Safety of Remdesivir for the Treatment of Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timotius Ivan Hariyanto ◽  
Felix Kwenandar ◽  
Karunia Valeriani Japar ◽  
Vika Damay ◽  
Andree Kurniawan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mortality Rate ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Clinical Improvement ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Pubmed Central ◽  
Review Manager

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a pandemic disease that has significant implications on the global health burden. Currently, there is no widely accepted pharmacologic treatment for COVID-19. Remdesivir has been shown effective against various types of viruses, including coronaviruses. This study aimed at synthesizing the latest evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of remdesivir as a potential treatment candidate against COVID-19. Methods: This systematic review has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020183707). A systematic search of the literature was conducted in PubMed, PubMed Central, and Google Scholar through June 5th, 2020. Statistical analysis was done by using the Review Manager 5.4 tool. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) and GRADE analysis was performed to determine the certainty of the evidence. Results: Two studies with a total of 1,300 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that remdesivir was associated with faster time to clinical improvement (MD -4.75 days; 95% CI -4.84 days to -4.65 days; p < 0.00001), reduction in mortality rate (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.27 – 0.56; p < 0.00001) and fewer incidence of serious adverse events (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.63 – 0.94; p = 0.01). GRADE analysis showed a high certainty for serious adverse events and moderate certainty for time to clinical improvement and mortality rate. Conclusion: Remdesivir is more effective and safer compared with standard care of treatment for the treatment of COVID19 because it was associated with faster time to clinical improvement, reduction in mortality rate, and fewer incidence of serious adverse events.

scholarly journals The effects of adding glucocorticosteroids to standard care for children with sepsis. A systematic review of randomized clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Kwasi Korang ◽  
Sanam Safi ◽  
Christian Gluud ◽  
Janus C Jakobsen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Sequential Analysis ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Trial Sequential Analysis ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background: Glucocorticosteroids are widely used to treat severe sepsis in pediatric intensive care units. However, the evidence on the clinical effects is unclear.Objective: To assess the benefits and harms of glucocorticosteroids for children with sepsis. Data Sources: We conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) (PROSPERO CRD42017054341). We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, SCI-Expanded, and more. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of adding glucocorticosteroids to standard care for children with sepsis. Data Extraction: Two independent reviewers screened studies and extracted data. Evidence was assessed by GRADE according to our published protocol.Data Synthesis: We included 24 trials randomizing 3073 participants. Meta-analyses showed no evidence of an effect of adding glucocorticosteroids for children with sepsis with a mixed focus for any of our outcomes. Meta-analyses suggested evidence of a beneficial effect of dexamethasone for children with meningitis when assessing serious adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.86; P = 0.001, very low certainty of evidence) and ototoxicity (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.88; P = 0.007, low certainty of evidence). TSAs showed that we did not have sufficient data to confirm or reject these results. We found insufficient evidence to confirm or reject an effect on mortality or our other outcomes. No trials reported quality of life or organ failure. Most trials were at high risks of bias. We found high clinical heterogeneity between participants. None of our TSAs showed benefits, harms or futility. Conclusions: Generally, we found no evidence of an effect of glucocorticosteroids for children with sepsis without meningitis. Dexamethasone for sepsis in children due to meningitis may decrease serious adverse events and ototoxicity.

scholarly journals Beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants versus placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder: a protocol for a systematic review of published and unpublished data with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Juul ◽  
Faiza Siddiqui ◽  
Marija Barbateskovic ◽  
Caroline Kamp Jørgensen ◽  
Michael Pascal Hengartner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Major Depressive Disorder ◽  
Depressive Symptoms ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Depressive Disorder ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Major Depressive ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Harmful Effects

Abstract Background Major depressive disorder is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders worldwide. Antidepressants are frequently used to treat major depressive disorder. It has been shown repeatedly that antidepressants seem to reduce depressive symptoms with a statistically significant effect, but the clinical importance of the effect sizes seems questionable. Both beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants have not previously been sufficiently assessed. The main objective of this review will be to evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants versus placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. Methods/design A systematic review with meta-analysis will be reported as recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2 (ROB2), our eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, Trial Sequential Analysis will be conducted to control for random errors, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. To identify relevant trials, we will search both for published and unpublished trials in major medical databases from their inception to the present. Clinical study reports will be obtained from regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Two review authors will independently screen the results of the literature searches, extract data, and perform risk of bias assessment. We will include any published or unpublished randomised clinical trial comparing one or more antidepressants with placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. The following active agents will be included: agomelatine, amineptine, amitriptyline, bupropion, butriptyline, cianopramine, citalopram, clomipramine, dapoxetine, demexiptiline, desipramine, desvenlafaxine, dibenzepin, dosulepin, dothiepin, doxepin, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, imipramine, iprindole, levomilnacipran, lofepramine, maprotiline, melitracen, metapramine, milnacipran, mirtazapine, nefazodone, nortriptyline, noxiptiline, opipramol, paroxetine, protriptyline, quinupramine, reboxetine, sertraline, trazodone, tianeptine, trimipramine, venlafaxine, vilazodone, and vortioxetine. Primary outcomes will be depressive symptoms, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes will be suicide or suicide attempt, suicidal ideation, and non-serious adverse events. Discussion As antidepressants are commonly used to treat major depressive disorder in adults, a systematic review evaluating their beneficial and harmful effects is urgently needed. This review will inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of this highly prevalent and burdensome disorder. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020220279

EP.WE.14Prognostic significance of metabolic syndrome in patients undergoing carotid artery revascularisation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shahab Hajibandeh ◽  
Shahin Hajibandeh
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Prognostic Significance ◽  
Long Term Outcomes ◽  
Short Term ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Major Adverse Events

Abstract Aims to evaluate prognostic significance of metabolic syndrome (MetS) in patients undergoing carotid artery revascularisation. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in compliance with PRISMA standards to evaluate prognostic significance of MetS in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy or carotid stenting. Short-term (&lt;30 days) postoperative outcomes (all-cause mortality, stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA), myocardial infarction, major adverse events) and long-term outcomes (restenosis, all-cause mortality, stroke or TIA, myocardial infarction, major adverse events) were considered as outcomes of interest. Random effects modelling was applied for the analyses. Results Analysis of 3721 patients from five cohort studies showed no difference between the MetS and no MetS groups in terms of the following short-term outcomes: all-cause mortality (OR: 1.67,P=0.32), stroke or TIA (OR: 2.44,P=0.06), myocardial infarction (OR: 1.01,P=0.96), major adverse events (OR: 1.23, P = 0.66). In terms of long-term outcomes, MetS was associated with higher risk of restenosis (OR: 1.75,P=0.02), myocardial infarction (OR: 2.12,P=0.04), and major adverse events (OR: 1.30, P = 0.009) but there was no difference between the two groups in terms of all-cause mortality (OR: 1.11, P = 0.25), and stroke or TIA (OR: 1.24, P = 0.33). The quality and certainty of the available evidence were judged to be moderate. Conclusions The best available evidence suggest that although MetS may not affect the short-term postoperative morbidity and mortality outcomes in patients undergoing carotid revascularisation, it may result in higher risks of restenosis, myocardial infarction and major adverse events in the long-term. Evidence from large prospective cohort studies are required for more robust conclusions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document