RESUMO
Background: Bile acid malabsorption (BAM) is characterized by chronic watery diarrhea resulting from excessive bile acids in the feces. BAM is often an overlooked cause of chronic diarrhea, with its prevalence not being sufficiently researched. This review aimed to assess existing literature that explores diverse treatment strategies, to review the published studies that examine the various therapies for BAM patients, emphasizing their influence on clinical results. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive review of various databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Database, and EMBASE. Our criteria for inclusion focused on randomized controlled studies (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness of different treatment options for patients with BAM. To rank the treatments, we adopted the frequentist approach through the "netrank" function of the network meta-analysis (NMA). Moreover, we utilized the "netsplit" function in the NMA to separate direct and indirect evidence. Our analysis was carried out using RStudio version 1.4.1717 (2009 - 2021 RStudio, Inc.), and we used the "netmeta" and "meta" packages for NMA. Results: We found seven relevant articles involving 213 participants, the average age being approximately 50 years, including 53 males and 92 females. Of the drugs examined, tropifexor was proved to be the most effective in raising the fibroblast growth factor 19 (FGF19) levels and reducing the 7 alpha-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one (C4) levels, compared to the placebo (mean difference (MD) = 335.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) (334.86, 335.74), MD = -24.60, 95% CI (-25.37, -23.83); respectively). Compared to colesevelam and the placebo, liraglutide was more efficient in decreasing fecal bile acid concentration (liraglutide; MD = -19, 95% CI (-37.61, -0.39)). Conclusions: Tropifexor has been identified as the most successful medication in mitigating BAM symptoms. To ensure more accurate results, there is a need for randomized controlled clinical trials that involve a larger participant pool.
RESUMO
This study aims to compare the effectiveness of leadless pacemakers (LPs) and transvenous pacemakers and to examine the safety of both methods. We included patients undergoing single-chamber pacemaker implantation, either LP or TVP. Our outcomes were successful implantation rate, major complication, vascular injury, tamponade, and pneumothorax. We performed a double-arm analysis comparing LP versus TVP, with risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval. A total of 10 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Regarding efficacy endpoints, RR revealed no significant difference between the LP and transvenous pacemaker groups in terms of successful rate of implantation (RR = 1.00; P = 0.77). Regarding safety outcomes, LP experienced lower incidence of major complications (RR = 0.47; P = 0.01), infection (RR = 0.24; P = 0.001), and tamponade (RR = 0.36; P = 0.01). There was no significant difference between both groups regarding pneumothorax (RR = 0.35; P = 0.22) and vascular injury (RR = 1.55; P = 0.25). The study findings suggest that both LPs and TVPs have similar effectiveness. Moreover, the incidences of pneumothorax, vascular injuries, and major complications were found to be comparable between the 2 methods. However, LPs were found to have lower rates of infection and tamponade.