Are novel glucose‐lowering agents’ cardiorenal benefits generalizable to individuals of Black race? A meta trial sequential analysis to address disparities in cardiovascular and renal outcome trials enrollment

Abstract Background Major depression significantly impairs quality of life, increases the risk of suicide, and poses tremendous economic burden on individuals and societies. Duloxetine, a serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, is a widely prescribed antidepressant. The effects of duloxetine have, however, not been sufficiently assessed in earlier systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Methods/design A systematic review will be performed including randomised clinical trials comparing duloxetine with ‘active’ placebo, placebo or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. Bias domains will be assessed, an eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed. We will conduct meta-analyses. Trial sequential analysis will be conducted to control random errors, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed using GRADE. To identify relevant trials, we will search Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica database, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index—Science and Conference Proceedings Citation Index—Social Science & Humanities. We will also search Chinese databases and Google Scholar. We will search all databases from their inception to the present. Two review authors will independently extract data and perform risk of bias assessment. Primary outcomes will be the difference in mean depression scores on Hamilton Depression Rating Scale between the intervention and control groups and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be suicide, suicide-attempts, suicidal ideation, quality of life and non-serious adverse events. Discussion No former systematic review has systematically assessed the beneficial and harmful effects of duloxetine taking into account both the risks of random errors and the risks of systematic errors. Our review will help clinicians weigh the benefits of prescribing duloxetine against its adverse effects and make informed decisions. Systematic review registration PROSPERO 2016 CRD42016053931

Download Full-text

Vitamin C, Thiamine, and Hydrocortisone in the Treatment of Sepsis: A Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Journal of Intensive Care Medicine ◽

10.1177/0885066620987809 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 088506662098780

Author(s):

Yazan Zayed ◽

Bashar N. Alzghoul ◽

Momen Banifadel ◽

Hima Venigandla ◽

Ryan Hyde ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Septic Shock ◽

Length Of Stay ◽

Vitamin C ◽

Sofa Score ◽

Sequential Analysis ◽

Trial Sequential Analysis ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Icu Length Of Stay ◽

Significant Difference

Background: There is a conflicting body of evidence regarding the benefit of vitamin C, thiamine, and hydrocortisone in combination as an adjunctive therapy for sepsis with or without septic shock. We aimed to assess the efficacy of this treatment among predefined populations. Methods: A literature review of major electronic databases was performed to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating vitamin C, thiamine, and hydrocortisone in the treatment of patients with sepsis with or without septic shock in comparison to the control group. Results: Seven studies met our inclusion criteria, and 6 studies were included in the final analysis totaling 839 patients (mean age 64.2 ± 18; SOFA score 8.7 ± 3.3; 46.6% female). There was no significant difference between both groups in long term mortality (Risk Ratio (RR) 1.05; 95% CI 0.85-1.30; P = 0.64), ICU mortality (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.73-1.44; P = 0.87), or incidence of acute kidney injury (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.80-1.37; P = 0.75). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in hospital length of stay, ICU length of stay, and ICU free days on day 28 between the intervention and control groups. There was, however, a significant difference in the reduction of SOFA score on day 3 from baseline (MD −0.92; 95% CI −1.43 to −.41; P < 0.05). In a trial sequential analysis for mortality outcomes, our results are inconclusive for excluding lack of benefit of this therapy. Conclusion: Among patients with sepsis with or without septic shock, treatment with vitamin C, thiamine, and hydrocortisone was not associated with a significant reduction in mortality, incidence of AKI, hospital and ICU length of stay, or ICU free days on day 28. There was a significant reduction of SOFA score on day 3 post-randomization. Further studies with a larger number of patients are needed to provide further evidence on the efficacy or lack of efficacy of this treatment.

Download Full-text