scholarly journals Inhaled corticosteroids and incident pneumonia in patients with asthma: Systematic review and meta-analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 135
Author(s):  
Vikas Bansal ◽  
Muhammad A. Mangi ◽  
Margaret M. Johnson ◽  
Emir Festic
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Risk Ratio ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Inhaled Corticosteroids ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Asthma Patients

<p><strong>Objectives</strong>. To systematically review all available studies on inhaled corticosteroid use and incident pneumonia in asthma patients. <strong>Methods</strong>. We performed a literature search from January 1, 1993, through August 15, 2015, using PubMed, Medline, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Scopus, ISI, Regulatory Documents, Web of Science and manufacturers’ web clinical trial registries with multiple search terms. We included studies that compared the risk of incident pneumonia among patients utilizing and not utilizing inhaled corticosteroids. We then summarized risk estimates into two random-effect meta-analyses; one including randomized controlled trials and another one including observational studies. <strong>Results</strong>. Fourteen studies were estimable; ten randomized controlled trials included 19,098 participants and four observational studies included 44,016 participants. There was no heterogeneity in randomized trials and summed risk ratio demonstrated the use of inhaled corticosteroids was protective of pneumonia; risk ratio 0.74, 95% CI 0.57to 0.95, p=0.02. On the contrary, observational studies showed summed odds ratio of 1.97; 95% CI 1.87to 2.07, p&lt;0.0001, I²=0%, suggesting increased risk of pneumonia with use of inhaled corticosteroids in asthma patients. <strong>Conclusions</strong>: Inhaled corticosteroids<br />are associated with decreased risk of incident pneumonia in patients with asthma based on meta-analysis of available randomized trials. Although observational studies in similar patients suggested higher risk of pneumonia, the inherent methodological limitations confer lower grade of confidence in these studies.</p>

scholarly journals High-cited favorable studies for COVID-19 treatments ineffective in large trials

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
John P.A. Ioannidis
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Clinical Studies ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Wide Dissemination ◽  
Highly Cited Articles ◽  
Highly Cited

Importance. COVID-19 has resulted in massive production, publication and wide dissemination of clinical studies trying to identify effective treatments. However, several widely touted treatments failed to show effectiveness in large well-done randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Objective. To evaluate for COVID-19 treatments that showed no benefits in subsequent large RCTs how many of their most-cited clinical studies had declared favorable results for these interventions. Methods. Scopus (last update December 23, 2021) identified articles on lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxycholoroquine/azithromycin, remdesivir, convalescent plasma, colchicine or interferon (index interventions) that represented clinical trials and that had received >150 citations. Their conclusions were assessed and correlated with study design features. The ten most recent citations for the most-cited article on each index intervention were examined on whether they were critical to the highly-cited study. Altmetric scores were also obtained. Findings. 40 articles of clinical studies on these index interventions had received >150 citations (7 exceeded 1,000 citations). 20/40 (50%) had favorable conclusions and 4 were equivocal. Highly-cited articles with favorable conclusions were rarely RCTs while those without favorable conclusions were mostly RCTs (3/20 vs 15/20, p=0.0003). Only 1 RCT with favorable conclusions had sample size >160. Citation counts correlated strongly with Altmetric scores, in particular news items. Only 9 (15%) of 60 recent citations to the most highly-cited studies with favorable or equivocal conclusions were critical to the highly-cited study. Conclusion. Many clinical studies with favorable conclusions for largely ineffective COVID-19 treatments are uncritically heavily cited and disseminated. Early observational studies and small randomized trials may cause spurious claims of effectiveness that get perpetuated.

scholarly journals SGLT2 inhibitors and the risk of diabetic ketoacidosis among adults with Type 2 Diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Colacci ◽  
John Fralick ◽  
Ayodele Odutayo ◽  
Michael Fralick
Keyword(s):  
Diabetic Ketoacidosis ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sglt2 Inhibitor ◽  
Sglt2 Inhibitors ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Absolute Rate ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Importance: The risk of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) with sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors is unclear. Objective: To examine the risk of DKA with SGLT2 inhibitors in both observational studies and large clinical trials. Data Sources: Searches of PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL (inception to 15 April 2019) without language restrictions; conference proceedings; and reference lists. Study Selection: Randomized controlled trials and observational studies that quantified the rate of diabetic ketoacidosis with an SGLT2 inhibitor in comparison to another diabetes medication or placebo. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent investigators abstracted study data and assessed the quality of evidence. Data were pooled using random effects models with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method. Main Outcome and Measures: Absolute event rates and hazard ratios for diabetic ketoacidosis were extracted from each study. Results: Seven randomized trials encompassing 42,375 participants and five cohort studies encompassing 318,636 participants were selected. Among the 7 randomized controlled trials, the absolute rate of DKA among patients randomized to an SGLT2 inhibitor ranged from 0.6 to 2.2 events per 1000 person years. Four randomized trials were included in the meta-analysis, and compared to placebo or comparator medication, SGLT2 inhibitors had a 2.4-fold higher risk of DKA (Relative Risk [RR] = 2.46 [95% CI, 1.16-5.21]; I2 = 0%; P = 0.54). Among the 5 observational studies, the absolute rate of DKA associated with SGLT2 inhibitor use ranged from 0.6 to 4.9 per 1000 person years and a 1.7-fold higher rate of DKA compared to another diabetes medication (RR = 1.74 [95% CI, 1.01-2.93]; I2 = 45%; P = 0.12). Conclusions and Relevance: In adults with type 2 diabetes, SGLT2 inhibitors increase the risk of DKA in both observational studies and large randomized clinical trials. Registration: CRD42019146855 Funding Source: None

scholarly journals Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors (PARPi) for Patients With Advanced Breast Cancer: a Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
YongCheng Su ◽  
XiaoGang Zheng
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Parp Inhibitors ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract BACKGROUND: Poly(ADP–ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are new class of drugs that are currently being studied in several malignancies. However, datas about the efficacy and safety of the PARP inhibitors are limited. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) in patients with breast cancer.METHODS: Pubmed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and abstracts presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) were searched for articles published from 2000 to June 2018.Summary incidences and the RR, HR with 95% confidence intervals, were calculated by using a random-effects or fixed-effects model.RESULTS: The summary HR indicated PARPi was not associated with OS (HR=0.83, 95%CI 0.66–1.06, Z=1.49, P=0.14), while it could significantly improve PFS ande time to deterioration (TTD) of global health status/quality of life(GHS/QoL) as compared with traditional standard therapy, the HR was 0.60(95%CI 0.50-0.72; Z=5.52, P＜0.00001) and 0.4 (95%CI 0.29–0.54,z=5.80 ,p=0.000),respectively.The RR of grade 3 or more anemia ,fatigue and headache was 3.02 (95% CI, 0.69–13.17;p = 0.14,,I2=90%),0.77 (95%CI, 0.34–1.73;p=0.52,I2=7%) and 1.13 (95% CI,0.30–4.18;p=0.86,I2=0%),respectively.CONCLUSION: The findings of this meta-analysis showed that PARPi has no significant effect on OS, while it could significantly improve in PFS and TTD of GHS/QoL for patients with advanced or metastatic breast cancer.Furthermore,our findings also demonstrated that the PARPi treatment is connected with an increased risk of grade 3 or more anemia adverse events.

Mechanical Thromboprophylaxis in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2006 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 402-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Limpus ◽  
Wendy Chaboyer ◽  
Ellen McDonald ◽  
Lukman Thalib
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Intensive Care Patients ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Confounding Variables

• Objective To systematically review the randomized trials, observational studies, and survey evidence on compression and pneumatic devices for thromboprophylaxis in intensive care patients. • Methods Published studies on the use of compression and pneumatic devices in intensive care patients were assessed. A meta-analysis was conducted by using the randomized controlled trials. • Results A total of 21 relevant studies (5 randomized controlled trials, 13 observational studies, and 3 surveys) were found. A total of 811 patients were randomized in the 5 randomized controlled trials; 3421 patients participated in the observational studies. Trauma patients only were enrolled in 4 randomized controlled trials and 4 observational studies. Meta-analysis of 2 randomized controlled trials with similar populations and outcomes revealed that use of compression and pneumatic devices did not reduce the incidence of venous thromboembolism. The pooled risk ratio was 2.37, indicative of favoring the control over the intervention in reducing the deep venous thrombosis; however, the 95% CI of 0.57 to 9.90 indicated no significant differences between the intervention and the control. A range of methodological issues, including bias and confounding variables, make meaningful interpretation of the observational studies difficult. • Conclusions The limited evidence suggests that use of compressive and pneumatic devices yields results not significantly different from results obtained with no treatment or use of low-molecular-weight heparin. Until large randomized controlled trials are conducted, the role of mechanical approaches to thromboprophylaxis for intensive care patients remains uncertain.

Dietary saturated fat and heart disease: a narrative review

2019 ◽  
Vol 78 (6) ◽  
pp. 474-485 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffery L Heileson
Keyword(s):  
Heart Disease ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Saturated Fat ◽  
Heart Association ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Disease Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract The American Heart Association (AHA) recently published a meta-analysis that confirmed their 60-year-old recommendation to limit saturated fat (SFA, saturated fatty acid) and replace it with polyunsaturated fat to reduce the risk of heart disease based on the strength of 4 Core Trials. To assess the evidence for this recommendation, meta-analyses on the effect of SFA consumption on heart disease outcomes were reviewed. Nineteen meta-analyses addressing this topic were identified: 9 observational studies and 10 randomized controlled trials. Meta-analyses of observational studies found no association between SFA intake and heart disease, while meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials were inconsistent but tended to show a lack of an association. The inconsistency seems to have been mediated by the differing clinical trials included. For example, the AHA meta-analysis only included 4 trials (the Core Trials), and those trials contained design and methodological flaws and did not meet all the predefined inclusion criteria. The AHA stance regarding the strength of the evidence for the recommendation to limit SFAs for heart disease prevention may be overstated and in need of reevaluation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document