scholarly journals Aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality events in diabetes: updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 316-327 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. K. Kunutsor ◽  
S. Seidu ◽  
K. Khunti
Keyword(s):  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
All Cause Mortality

scholarly journals All-Cause Mortality and Cardiovascular Death between Statins and Omega-3 Supplementation: A Meta-Analysis and Network Meta-Analysis from 55 Randomized Controlled Trials

Nutrients ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (10) ◽  
pp. 3203
Author(s):  
Jeongseon Kim ◽  
Tung Hoang ◽  
Ji-Myung Kim ◽  
So Young Bu ◽  
Jeong-Hwa Choi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Secondary Prevention ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mixed Population ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Omega 3 ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Statin Use

Statins and omega-3 supplementation have shown potential benefits in preventing cardiovascular disease (CVD), but their comparative effects on mortality outcomes, in addition to primary and secondary prevention and mixed population, have not been investigated. This study aimed to examine the effect of statins and omega-3 supplementation and indirectly compare the effects of statin use and omega-3 fatty acids on all-cause mortality and CVD death. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from meta-analyses published until December 2019. Pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to indirectly compare the effect of statin use versus omega-3 supplementation in a frequentist network meta-analysis. In total, 55 RCTs were included in the final analysis. Compared with placebo, statins were significantly associated with a decreased the risk of all-cause mortality (RR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.86–0.94) and CVD death (RR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.80–0.92), while omega-3 supplementation showed a borderline effect on all-cause mortality (RR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.94–1.01) but were significantly associated with a reduced risk of CVD death (RR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.87–0.98) in the meta-analysis. The network meta-analysis found that all-cause mortality was significantly different between statin use and omega-3 supplementation for overall population (RR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.85–0.98), but borderline for primary prevention and mixed population and nonsignificant for secondary prevention. Furthermore, there were borderline differences between statin use and omega-3 supplementation in CVD death in the total population (RR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.82–1.04) and primary prevention (RR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.68–1.05), but nonsignificant differences in secondary prevention (RR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.66–1.43) and mixed population (RR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.75–1.14). To summarize, statin use might be associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality than omega-3 supplementation. Future direct comparisons between statin use and omega-3 supplementation are required to confirm the findings.

Long-term mortality and patency after drug-coated balloon angioplasty in the hemodialysis circuit: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2022 ◽  
pp. 112972982110701
Author(s):  
Yunfeng Li ◽  
Zhenwei Shi ◽  
Yunyun Zhao ◽  
Zhanjiang Cao ◽  
Zhengli Tan
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Balloon Angioplasty ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Primary Patency ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Technical Success ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Drug Coated Balloon

Purpose: To compare all-cause mortality and primary patency with drug-coated balloon angioplasty (DCBA) compared with plain balloon angioplasty (PBA) in people with hemodialysis-related stenosis. Materials and methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from November 1966 to February 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the use of DCBA versus PBA for stenosis in hemodialysis circuits. Data extracted from the articles were integrated to determine all-cause mortality, target lesion primary patency (TLPP), circuit access primary patency (CAPP), 30-day adverse events, and technical success for the two approaches. We performed meta-analysis on these results using a fixed-effects model to evaluate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) where I2 < 50% in a test for heterogeneity, or a random-effect model if otherwise. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were also performed. Results: Sixteen RCTs of 1672 individuals were included in our meta-analysis, of which 839 individuals received DCBA and 833 received PBA. The pooled outcome showed no statistical difference between DCBA and PBA in all-cause mortality at 6 months (OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 0.72–2.32, p = 0.39, I2 = 4%), 12 months (OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.68–1.53, p = 0.91, I2 = 0%), and 24 months (OR = 1.50, 95% CI = 0.87–2.57, p = 0.15, I2 = 0%), 30-day adverse events (OR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.30–3.98, p = 0.90, I2 = 66%), and technical success (OR = 0.18, 95% CI = 0.02–1.92, p = 0.16, I2 = 65%). The DCBA had significantly better outcomes versus PBA in TLPP at 6 months (OR = 2.37, 95% CI = 1.84–3.04, p < 0.001, I2 = 44%) and 12 months (OR = 1.77, 95% CI = 1.22–2.56, p = 0.002, I2 = 56%), and CAPP at 6 months (OR = 2.07, 95% CI = 1.21–3.54, p = 0.008, I2 = 67%) and 12 months (OR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.29–2.15, p < 0.001, I2 = 0%). Conclusion: In hemodialysis circuit stenosis, DCBA appears to have similar safety but greater efficacy than PBA.

scholarly journals Tocilizumab in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A meta analysis of randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vijairam Selvaraj ◽  
Mohammad Saud Khan ◽  
Kwame Dapaah-Afriyie ◽  
Arkadiy Finn ◽  
Chirag Bavishi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Standard Therapy ◽  
Treatment Guidelines ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Mortality And Morbidity ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
All Cause Mortality

ABSTRACTBackgroundTo date, only dexamethasone has been shown to reduce mortality in COVID-19 patients. Tocilizumab has been recently added to the treatment guidelines for hospitalized COVID-19 patients, but data remains conflicting.MethodsElectronic databases such as MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane central were searched from March 1, 2020, until February 28th, 2021, for randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of tocilizumab in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The outcomes assessed were all-cause mortality at 28 days, mechanical ventilation, and time to discharge.ResultsEight studies (with 6,311 patients) were included in the analysis. In total, 3,267 patients received tocilizumab, and 3,044 received standard care/placebo. Pooled analysis showed a significantly decreased risk of all-cause mortality at 28 days (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.97, p=0.009) and progression to mechanical ventilation (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70-0.90, p=0.0002) in the tocilizumab arm compared to standard therapy or placebo. In addition, there was a trend towards improved median time to hospital discharge (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05-1.34, p=0.007).ConclusionsTocilizumab therapy improves outcomes of mortality and need for mechanical ventilation, in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection compared with standard therapy or placebo. Our findings suggest the efficacy of tocilizumab therapy in hospitalized COVID-19 patients and strengthen the concept that tocilizumab is a promising therapeutic intervention to improve mortality and morbidity in COVID-19 patients.

scholarly journals Intravenous Colistin Monotherapy versus Combination Therapy against Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria Infections: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (8) ◽  
pp. 208 ◽  
Author(s):  
I-Ling Cheng ◽  
Yu-Hung Chen ◽  
Chih-Cheng Lai ◽  
Hung-Jen Tang
Keyword(s):  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Gram Negative Bacteria ◽  
Gram Negative ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Carbapenem Resistant ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
All Cause Mortality

This meta-analysis aims to compare intravenous colistin monotherapy and colistin-based combination therapy against carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria (GNB) infections. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched up to July 2018. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating colistin alone and colistin-based combination therapy in the treatment of carbapenem-resistant GNB infections were included. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Five RCTs including 791 patients were included. Overall, colistin monotherapy was associated with a risk ratio (RR) of 1.03 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.89–1.20, I2 = 0%) for all-cause mortality compared with colistin-based combination therapy. The non-significant difference was also detected in infection-related mortality (RR, 1.23, 95% CI, 0.91–1.67, I2 = 0%) and microbiologic response (RR, 0.86, 95% CI, 0.72–1.04, I2 = 62%). In addition, no significant difference was observed in the subgroup analysis—high or low dose, with or without a loading dose, carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii infections, and in combination with rifampicin. Finally, colistin monotherapy was not associated with lower nephrotoxicity than colistin combination therapy (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84–1.21, I2 = 0%). Based on the analysis of the five RCTs, no differences were found between colistin monotherapy and colistin-based combination therapy against carbapenem-resistant GNB infections, especially for A. baumannii infections.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document